1979 Lunar Resources Utilization Vol2

_W
f
w
..j
GDC-ASP79-001
(NASA-CR-]7302_) LUNAR a_SOURCES -E8_---7 8_-7 7

UTILIZATION FOR SPACE CONSTRUCTION. VOIUME
2: STUDY RESULTS Final Report, Apr. 1978 -
Feb. 1979 _General Dynamics/Colorant) 478 p U nc la s
00/12 1512q
LUNAR RESOURCES UTILIZATION

FOR SPACE CONSTRUCTION
FINAL REPORT
VOLUME II " STUDY RESULTS
CONTRACT NO. NAS9-15560

DRL NO. T- 1451
DRD NO. MA-677T
LINE ITEM NO= 4
30 April 1979
Submitted to
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
LYNDON B. JOHNSON SPACE CENTER
Houston, Texas 77058
Prepared by
GENERAL DYNAMICS CONVAIR DIVISION
P.O. Box 80847
San Diego, California 92138
k.,
w
_j
L
,.--4,o
\
i
FOREWORD
This final report was prepared by General Dynamics Convair Division for NASA/JSC
in accordance with Contract NAS9-15560, DRL No. T-1451, DRD No. MA-677T,
Line Item No. 4. It consists of three volumes: (1)A brief Executive Summary; (If)a
comprehens{ve discussion of Study Results; and (HI)a compilation of Appendicies to
further document and support the Study Results.
The study results were developed from April 1978 through February 1979, followed by
preparation of the final documentation. Reviews were presented at JSC on 18 October
1978 and 21 February 1979.
Participants who significantly contributed to this study include General Dynamics Convair
personnel, a materials processing and manufactur_g consultant, and five technical
reviewers who are nationally recognized authorities on lunar materials and/or space
manufacturing.
Gener_ Dynamics Convair
Ed Bock -- Study Manager
s© Mike Burz -- Transportation Analysis

Lane Cow,ill -- Tr-aj ectory Analysis
Andy Evancho -- Economic Amalysis
Bob Risley -- Economic Analysis
Charley Shawl -- Transportation Systems
Joe Streetman -- Transportation Systems
Maridee Peter-sen -- Typing
Consultant
Abe Hurlich Material Processing & Manufacturing

(Retired Manager of Convair's Materials Technolo=cT Depart-
ment and past national president of the American Society for
Metals. )
Technical .Reviewers
Dr. Jim Arnold -- University of California at San Diego

Gerald Driggers -- Southern Research Institute
Dr. Art Dula -- Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp
Dr. John Freeman -- Rice University
\.
Dr. Gerry O'Neill -- Princeton University
iii
In addition to these participants, useful supportive information was obtained from two
complementary study activities, from personnel at NASA's Johnson Space Center and
Lewis Research Center, and from many academic and industrial researchers who are
involved with development of manufacturing processes which may be especially suited
for in space use.
Contract NAS09- 051- 001 "Extraterrestrial Materials Processing and Construc-

tion" being performed by Dr. Criswell of LPI under the direction of JSC's
Dr. Williams.
Contract NAS8-32925 "Extraterrestrial Processing and Manufacturing of Large

Space Systems" being performed by Mr. Smith of MIT under the direction of
MSFC's Mr. yon Tiesenhausen.
@
Earth Baseline Solar Power Satellite costing information from Mr. Harron,
Mr. Whittington, and Mr. Wadle of NASA's Johnson Space Center.
Ion Electric Thruster information for argon and oxygen propellants provided
by Mr. Regetz and Mr. Byers of NASA's Lewis Research Center.
Electron Beam Vapor Deposition of Metals Informa don from Dr. Schiller of
Forschungsinstitut Manfred Von Ardenne, Dresden, and Dr. Bunshah of J
UCLA, plus others.
Solar Cell Manufacturing Information from Mr. Wald of Mobile Tyco Solar
Energy Corp., Mr. Minnucci and Mr. Younger of SPIRE Corp., and Mr. Dubik
of Schott Optical Glass Co., plus others.
#
Glass Manufacture Using Lunar Materials Information from Dr. MacKenzie

of UCLA.
The study was conducted in Convair's Advanced Space Programs department, directed
by J. B. (Jack) Hurl The NASA-JSC COR is Earle Crum_ of the Transportation
Systems Office, under Hubert Davis, Manager.
For further information contact:
Earle M. Crum Edward H. Bock

National Aeronautics and "Space Administration General Dynamics Convair Division
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Advanced Space Programs, 21-9500
Transportation Systems Office, Code ER P. O. Box 80847
Houston, Texas 770S8 San Diego, California 92138
(AC713) 483-3083 (AC714) 277-8900 x2510

V
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
INTRODUCTION I-i
i. 1 BACKGROUND i-i
I. 2 LUNAR RESOURCES UTILIZATION CONCEPT 1-2
1.3 STUDY SCOPE 1-3
1.4 OBJECTIVES 1-3
i. 5 VOLUME II ORGANIZATION 1-4
2 COMPARISON METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA (TASK 5.1) 2-1
2.1 STUDY GUIDELINES 2-1
2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA 2-7
2. 3 FIGURES OF MERIT 2-8
2.4 COMPARISON METHODOLOGY 2-12

2.4. I Comparison Approach 2-15
MATERIAL REQL-IREMENTS AND SCENARIO

DEVELOPMENT (TASK 5.2)
3.1 GROUNDRULES AND ASSLq_IPTIONS
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF LOW SCENARIO TOTAL

MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS 3-3
3.3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF NOMINAL MATERIAL

THRESHOLD 3-6
3.4 SATELLITE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

(EARTH RESOURCES) 3-14
3.5 SATELLITE MATERIAL REQL_IREMENTS (LUNAR

RESOLrR CES) 3-21
3.5.1 Characterization of SPS Earth Material
Requirements 3-21
3.5.2 Lunar Resource Material Substitution 3-22
3.5.3 Evaluation of Substitute Lunar Materials 3-27
3.5.4 Lunar Resource SPS Material Requirements 3-31
4 LUNAR UTILIZATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS DEFINITION

(TASK 5.3) 4-1
V
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
Section
4.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE LRU IMPLEMENTATION

OPTIONS 4-3
4.2 EARTH MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS (EMR) & LRU

CONCEPTS DEVELOPMENT 4-10
4.2. I Concept A - Earth Baseline 4-15
4.2.2 Concept B - Lunar Mass Driver Catapult 4-17
4.2.3 Concept C - Lunar LH2/LO 2 Chemical Rocket 4-19
4.2.4 Concept D - Lunar Derived Rocket 4- 21
4.2.5 EMR Sensitivity Analyses 4- 23
4.3 EMR COMPARISON AND PRELIMINARY CONCEPT

ASSESSMENT 4- 27
4.4 LUNAR MATERIALS PROCESSING AND

M AN_JFA CTURI NG 4- 30
4.4.1 The Lunar Surface - Composition and
Characteristics 4- 32
4. 4.2 Mining and Beneficiation of Lunar Regolith 4-37
4.4.3 Extraction of Materials From Lunar Regolith 4-42
4.4.4 Manufacture of Stock Materials 4-51
4.4.5 Manufacture of Parts 4- 72
4.4.6 Component Assembly 4-73
4.4.7 Materials Losses During Processing and
Manufacture 4- 78
4.4.8 Earth Materials Requirements 4-84
4.5 LRU INFRASTRUCTLrRE ELEMENT DEFINITION 4-89

4.5.1 Propellant Depots 4- 89
4.5.2 Habitats 4-106
4.5. 3 Power Systems 4-138
4. 6 LRU TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DEFINITION 4-147-

4.6.1 Vehicle and Fleet Sizing 4-150
4.6.2 Vehicle Descriptions 4-157
4.6.3 Vehicle Comparison and Other Considerations 4-183
4.6.4 Vehicle Requirements Summary 4-188
LRU MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION 4-190
LRU START-UP LOGISTICS 4-196
,_
vi
.=
Section
4.8.1 Start-Up Mass Estimates 4-197

4.8.2 Start-up Period and Fleet SizingEstimates 4-214
4.8.3 Earth Launched Payload Comparison 4-217
4.9 UPDATED IN-SPACE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

ESTIMATE 4-219
ECONOMIC ANALYSES (TASKS 5.3, 5.4 & 5.6) 5-1
5.1 EARTH MANUFACTURED SPS BASELINE 5-4

5.1.1 Cost Work Breakdown Structure 5-4
5.1.2 SPS Baseline Life Cycle Cost 5-5
5.2 LUNAR RESOURCE UTILIZATION ELEMENT _OSTS 5-8
5.3 TOTAL PROGRAM COST OF THE LRU OPTIONS 5-15

5.3. I Costs 5-15
5.3.2 Nominal Economic Thresholds 5-31
5.3.3 Cost Reconciliation 5-31
5.4 COST UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 5-44

5.4.1 MethodoloF:b" 5-45
S. 4.2 Economic Thresholds 5-50
5.4.3 Threshold Sensitivity to Manufacturing Costs 5-58
5.4.4 Implications of the Uncertainty and
Sensitivity Analyses 5-63
5.4. S Key Driver Parameters 5-65
5°5 FUNDING SPREAD PROFILES/PRESENT VALUE

ANAL YSI S 5-67
5.5.1 Funding Profiles 5-69
5.5.2 Present Value 5-78
PRELIMINARY DECISION ANALYSIS (TASK 5.5) 6-1
6. I PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEFINITION 6-2
6.2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES 6-9
6.3 ACHIEVEMENTS NEEDED TO JUSTIFY FUNDING 6-11
vii
Section
RECOMMENDATIONS (TASK 5.7) 7-1
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 7-2

7. 1.1 System Study Recommendations 7-3
7.1.2 Technology Studies 7-8
7.2 TASK ASSESSMENT AND SCHEDULING 7-11
7.3 LRU SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY EXPERIMENTS 7-12
REVIEWER CONTRIBUTIONS 8-1
8.1 REVIEWER RESUMES 8-2
8.2 DR. ARNOLD'S COMMENTS 8-10

8.2.1 Sigrdficant Contributions Made by Study 8-10
Assessment of Study Usefulness and Applicability 8-11
Expanded Comments Concerning Dr. Arnold's
Specific Areas of Interest 8-12
8.3 MR. DRIGGERS' COMMENTS 8-2O

8, 3.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study 8-20
8.3, 2 Evaluation of Study Results; Criticisms 8-21
8.3.3 Expanded Information Concerning Mr. Driggers'
Specific Area of Interest 8- 21
8.4 DR. DULA'S COMMENTS 8-31

8.4.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study 8-31
8.4.2 Assessment of Study Usefulness and
Applicability 8-32
8.4.3 Expanded Comments Concerning Dr. Dula's
Specific Area of Interest 8-33
8.5 DR. FREEMAN'S COMMENTS 8-36

8.5.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study 8--36
8.5.2 Evaluation of Study Results; Criticisms 8-38
8.5.3 Expanded Comments Concerning Dr. Freeman's
Special Area of Interest 8-39
8.6 DR. O'NEILL'S COMMENTS 8-44

8.6.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study 8-44
8.6.2 Assessment of Study Usefulness and Appli-
cability - Limitation of Starting Assumptions 8-45
8.6.3 Evaluation of Study Results; Criticisms 8-52
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
2-1 Average unit SPS costs. 2-10

L 2-2 Lunar resource utilization cost projections from previous
work. 2-14
2-3 Comparison approach. 2-16
2-4 Example steady-state cargo transfer scenario for a LRU
concept with conventional chemical Lunar Transfer Vehicle
i 2-5 iterative approach for developing representative LRU concepts.
2-6 Initial nomAnal economic comparison of LRU and Earth
Baseline concepts. 2-21
2-..7 Comparison of LRU and Earth Baseline concepts including
cost uncertainties. 2-22
3-1 Lunar material requirements development. 3-1

3-2 Preliminary estimate of nominal threshold point. 3-13
3-3 Steps for lunar material substitution. 3-21
4-1 Four representative implementation options for in-space

manufacturing of large structures. 4-5
4-2 Concept A - Earth Baseline SPS. 4-16
4-3 LRU Concept B - Lunar Mass Driver Catapult. 4-17
4-4 LRU Concept B - Mass Driver Catapult. 4-18
4-5 LRU Concepts C&D-Lunar chemical rockets. 4-19
4-6 LRU Concept C - LO2/LH 2 lunar transfer vehicle. 4-20
4-7 LRU Concept D - Lunar derived rocket. 4-22
4-8 Percent of SPS derived from lunar resources. 4-24
4-9 Processing and manufacturing scope. 4-31
4-10 Mining and beneficiation. 4-40
4-11 Proposed lunar material melting facility. 4-47
4-12 " Aluminum sheet production, continuous vapor deposition. 4-56
4-13 Foamed glass production, continuous automated process for
structural and waveguide components. 4-65
4-14 Solar cell module production. 4-77
4-15 Infrastructure elements. 4-90
4-16 LRU element data sheet--LEO propellant depot. 4-95
4-17 Flexible container configuration. 4-97
4-18 LRU element data sheet--Lunar oxygen liquefaction facility. 4-101
4-19 LRU element data sheet_Sl_IF oxygen liquefaction facility. 4-103
4-20 Configuration summary. 4-105
4-21 LRU element data sheet--LEO modular space station. 4-110
4-22 Galactic radiation protection for deep space habitats. 4-113
ix
LIST OF FIGURES (cont'd)
Number
4-23 Solar flare radiation protection for deep space habitats. 4-115
4:-.24 LRU element data sheetuTemporary shelter. 4-120
4-25 LRU element data sheetuSmall lunar base habitat. 4-122
4-26 Configuration of lunar base habitat modules constructed from
ET hydrogen tanks. 4-126
4-27 Conceptual geometric arrangement for 1200 person lunar base
using ET LH 2 tanks. 4-127
4-28 LRU element data sheet uLarge lunar base habitat. 4-129
4-29 Proposed configuration for modular 1 g SMF habitat employing
ET hydrogen tanks. 4-132
4-30 LRU element data sheet--SMF habitat. 4-134
4-31 Habitat configuration summary. 4-138
4-32 LRU element data sheet--Lunar nuclear power plant. 4-145
4-33 LRU element data sheet m Space photovoltaic power plant. 4-146
4-34 LRU transportation benefit. 4-148
4-35 Transportation routes and vehicle requirements. 4-150
4-36 LRU element data sheet w HLLV. 4-158
4-37 LRU element data sheet--PLV. 4-159
4-38 LRU element data sheet--POTV (Earth Baseline). 4-161
4-39 LRU element data sheet--COTV ( Earth Baseline). 4-163
4-40 LRU element data sheet--Passenger and crew control module. 4-164
4-41 Earth launch vehicle comparative assessment. 4-165
4-42 LRU element data sheetwSDV. 4-166
w
'4-43 LRU element data sheet--Space Shuttle. 4-168

4-44 LRU element data sheet--POTV (LRU concepts). 4-169
4-45 LRU element data sheet--COTV (LRU concepts). 4-171
4-46 LRU element data sheet--LTV. 4-174
4-47 LRU element data sheet_LDR. 4-175
4-48 LRU element data sheet--Mass driver catapult. 4-177
4-49 LRU element data sheet wMass catcher. 4-178
4-50 LRU element data sheet--Terminal tug. 4-180
4-51 LRU element data sheet--PLTV. 4-184
4-52 COTV assessment. 4-186
4-53 Lunar material launch technique. 4-187
4-54 Material characterization for LRU Concept B. 4-193
4-55 Material characterization for LRU Concept C. 4-195
4-56 LRU Concept B start-up payload requirements. 4-212
4-57 LRU Concept C start-up payload requirements. 4-213
4-58 LRU Concept D start-up payload requirements. 4-213 _ I
X
k_
Number Page
L
4-59 Earth launched payload comparison. 4-218
5-0 Economic analysis task flow. 5-3

---:!_ =
5-1 Summary cost work breakdown structure. 5-5

5-2 Development cost work breakdown structure. 5-6
5-3 Production cost work breakdown structure. 5-7
5-4 Operations cost work breakdown structure. 5-8
5-5 Nominal economic thresholds for LRU Concepts B, C and D. 5-32
5-6 Development cost comparison. 5-34
5-7 Production/operations cost comparison. 5-35
5-8 Earth Baseline manufacturing chain. 5-38
5-9 LRU SPS manufacturing chain. 5-39
5-10 LRU Concept B threshold with • 3o" uncertainty ranges. 5-51
5-11 LRU Concept C threshold with _- 3o' uncertainty ranges. 5-52
5-12 LRU Concept D threshold with *30" uncertainty ranges. 5-53
5-13 Iterative process required to determine crossover as a
function of cost uncertainty ranges. 5-55
5-14 Identification of maximum crossover points for various cost
un certainty ranges. 5-56
5--15 Nominal economic thresholds if Earth Baseline and LRU
Concept manufacturing costs are equal. 5-60
5--16 LRU Concept B economic threshold with +3(7 uncertainty
ranges. 5-61
5-17 Crossover points if Earth Baseline and LRU concepts
have equal manufacturing costs. 5-62
5-18 Annual cost distribution curves. 5-70
5-19 Earth Baseline funding spread schedule. 5-72
5-20 Funding schedule - typical for LRU Concepts B, C & D. 5-73
5-21 Estimated annual expenditures - Earth Baseline. 5-74
5-22 Estimated annual expenditures - LRU Concept B. 5-75
5-23 Estimated annual expenditures - LRU Concept C. 5-76
5-24 Estimated annual expenditures - LRU Concept D. 5-77
5-25 Cumulative present value comparison of costs at a 7%
discount rate. 5-79
discount rate. 5-80
discount rate. 5-81
Number
6-1 Parallel development programs for Earth Baseline and

LRU satellite construction. 6-3
6-2 Example Earth Baseline SPS program plan - summary schedule 6-12
6-3 Example lunar resource utilization SPS program plan -
summary schedule. 6-13
6-4 Example lunar resource utilization SPS development schedule. 6-15
7-1 Proposed schedule for system study tasks. 7-15

7-2 Proposed schedule for technology development tasks. 7-16
8-1 Timeframe chart for treaties and organizations 8-37
8-2 The Photoklystron 8-42
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Number
1-1 Lunar resources utilization study tasks. 1-4
2-1 LRU manufacturing options. 2- 5

2-2 Candidate evaluation criteria. 2- 8
2-3 Transportation cost contributors. 2-11
2-4 Manufacturing cost contributors. 2-11
2-5 Judgemental considerations. 2-11
2-6 Alternative construction concepts. 2-19
3-1 Candidate satellites for the low material requirements scenario. 3-4
3-2 Information employed for estimating satellite quantities. 3-5
3-3 Low material requirements scenario does not include
satellite power stations. 3-7
3--4 SPS development/startup cost coniparison. 3-9
3-5 Summer study cost adjustments. 3-10
3-6 Adjusted summer study production costs for one SPS per year. 3-11
3-7 SPS unit cost comparison (1977 SB). 3-11
3-8 10 GW satellite system materials requirements. 3-15
3-9 SPS earth material requirements summary. 3-16
3-10 Estimated earth material requirements for modified low
scenario satellites other than SPS. 3-17
3-11 Low scenario earth material requirements summary. 3-16
3-12 Comparison of low scenario material requiren'e nts. 3-19
3-13 SPS earth material requirements mass breakdown. 3-23
3-14 SPS earth material mass ranking and application. 3-24
3-15 Recommended lunar material substitutions. 3- 26
3-16 Compilation of SPS substitute lunar materials. 3-28
3-17 Assessment of lunar material substitutes. 3- 29
3-18 Lunar Resource SPS material requirements. 3-32
4-1 Summary of material processing locations for the Earth

Baseline and three generalized space manufacturing options, 4-4
4-2 Definition of vehicle performance assumptions. 4-13
4-3 Material requirements sensitivity. 4- 26
4-4 Comparison of LRU Concepts and Earth Baseline. 4-28
4-5 Summary LRU Concept comparison with Earth Baseline. 4-28
4-6 Earth & lunar crustal compositions. 4-32
4-7 Percent occurrence of minerals in lunar materials. 4-34
4-8 Lunar materials available. 4-36
xiii
LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
Numb e r
4-9 Materials extraction and manufacturing. 4-38

4-10 Suggested processes for extraction of SPS materials from
lunar soils. 4-44
4-11 Aluminum alloys capable of being prepared from lunar
materials. 4-53
4-12 Processes for manufacture of aluminum sheet. 4-55
4-13 Iron and steel alloys capable of being made from lunar
materials. 4-59
4-14 Processes for manufacture of iron and steel products. 4-61
4-15 Processes for manufacture of fused silica glass sheet. 4-68
4-16 SMF mass and power requirements for stock production and
manufacture of SPS parts and assemblies. 4-79
4-17 Lunar and earth material require]hent's summary; non-
recoverable manufacturing losses not considered, 4-80
4-18 Summary of SPS material requirements including non-
recoverable losses, 4-81
4-19 Revised SPS mass estimate for construction with lunar
materials. 4-82
4-20 Stock material requirements for SPS obtained from lunar V
resources, 4-83
4-21 Cooling water requirements. 4-86
4-22 Material requirements other than water. 4-87
4-23 Requirements for materials other than fluids. 4-88
4-24 Earth material requirements for SPS production. 4-88
4-25 Depot propellants. 4-92
4-26 SDV launched propellant delivery mcdules. 4-93
4-27 LEO depot mass estimate. 4-94
4-28 Depot sizing constants. 4-99
4-29 Lunar oxygen liquefaction equipment mass estimate. 4-100
4-30 SMF oxygen liquefaction equipment mass estimate. 4-102
4-31 Propellant facility sizing summary.
4-32 Habitats are grouped by three major parameters. 4-106
4-33 Habitat design requirements are sensitive to LRU systems
concepts. 4-108
4-34 LEO modular space station radiation protection.
4-..35 Shielding requirements for deep space habitats. 4-116
4-36 Solar flare shelter size and mass estimates. 4-117
4-37 Total habitat mass as a function of crew stay time. 4-118
4---38 Initial consumables for 12 person lunar base. 4-123
4-39 1200 person lunar base habitat mass estimate. 4-130 -- =
4-40 1500 person EMF habitat mass estimate. 4-135
xiv
Number
4-41 Habitat comparison. 4-137

4-42 Habitat sizing summary. 4-137
4-43 Power system summary (1990 technology). 4-139
4-44 Weight sumn}ary for a 350 IVIWe nuclear power system. 4-141
4-45 Weight summary for a 350 MWe solar power system. 4-143
4-46 LRU concept power requirements. 4-144
4-47 Power plant sizing. 4-144
4-48 Sites assumed for definition of LRU transportation systems. 4-149
4-49 Concept A vehicle and fleet sizing. 4-152
4-50 Concept B vehicle and fleet sizing. 4-153
4-51 Concept C vehicle and fleet sizing. 4-155
4-52 Concept D vehicle and fleet sizing. ,!--156
4-53 Ion electric COTV characteristics. 4-172
4-54 Catcher/Terminal tug options. 4-182
4-55 Vehicle requirements comparison. 4-189
4-56 Lunar material requirements per 10 GW SPSo 4-191
4-57 Concept B start-up phase. 4-198
4-58 Concepts C&D start-up phase. 4-199
4-59 Concept B start-up estimate. 4-202
4-60 Concept C start-up estimate. 4-205
4-61 Concept D start-up estimate. 4-208
4-62 Start-up mass estimate for Concept B. 4-211
4-6.3 Start-up Mass Estimate for Concept C. 4-211
4-64 Start-up Mass Estimate for Concept D. 4-212
4-65 Start-up Mass Summary Comparison, 4-214
4-66 Start-up operations for Concept B. 4-215
4-67 Start-up operations for Concept C. 4-215
4-68 Start-up operations for Concept D. 4-215
4-69 Concept B personnel estimate. 4-221
4-70 Concepts C and D personnel estimates. 4-223
4-71 LRU in-space personnel requirements. 4-224
5-1 RDT&E phase definitions 5-9
5-2 Production phase definitions. 5-10
5-3 Operations phase. 5-11
5-4 Earth Baseline lifecycle cost. 5-12
5-5 LRU Option B lifecycle cost. 5-18
5-6 LRU Option C lifecycle cost. 5-22
5-7 LRU Option D lifecycle cost. 5-26
5-8 Summary program cost comparison. 5-30
5-9 Major cost differences between the Earth Baseline and
LRU Concept B. 5-36
XV
Number Page
5-10 Confidence level criteria for cost uncertainty estimates. 5--46

5-11 Cost element confidence levels and uncertainty range estimates. 5-47
5-12 Program phase cost uncertainty ranges. 5--49
5-13 Ranking of cost contributors. 5-66
5-14 Present values of the alternatives. 5-82
6-1 System element development comparison. 6-9

6-2 Critical LRU development requirements. 6-15
7-1 System study task assessment. 7-13

7-2 Technology development task assessment. 7-14
7-3 LRU shuttle technology experiments. ' 7-17
xvi
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ACS Attitude Control System

COR Contracting Officers Representative
COTV Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicle
CRES Corrosion Resistant Steel
CTV Cargo Transfer Vehicle
DOE Department of Energy
DRD Data Requirement Description
DRL Data Requirements List
ECLSS Environmental Control & Life Support System
EMR Earth Material Requirements
ET External Tank (Space Shuttle)
EVA Extra Vehicular Activity
GDC General Dynamics Convair
GEO Geostationary (or Geosynchronous) Earth Orbit
HLLV Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle
ISP Specific Impulse
JSC Johnson Space Center (NASA)
L2 Lagrangian Libration Point Behind Moon
L 4 or L 5 Lagrangian Libration Point which Forms an Equalateral
Triangle with Earth and Moon
LDR Lunar Derived Rocket
LEO Low Earth Orbit
LeRC Lewis Research Center (NASA)
LLO Low Lunar Ort_it
LMR Lunar Material Requirements
LP! Lunar and Planetary Institute
LRU Lunar Resource Utilization
LS Life Support
LSS Large Space Structure
LTV Lunar Transfer Vehicle
MBE Molecular Beam Epitaxy
MDRE Mass Driver Reaction Engine
MIT Massachusetts Instituteof Technology
MPTS Microwave Power Transmission System
MSFC Marshall Spaceflight Center (NASA)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OTV Orbital Transfer Vehicle
PLTV Personnel Lunar Transfer Vehicle
PLV Personnal Launch Vehicle
xvii
L
I/ST OF ACRONYI_[S (cont'd) %mi
POTV Personnel Orbital Transfer Vehicle

RDT&E Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
RiV[S Remote lIaniputator System (Space Shuttle)
RPL Rotary Pellet Launcher
SCB Space Construction Base
SDV Shuttle Derived Vehicle
SEP Solar Electric Propulsion
SMF Space _Ianufacmring Facility
SPS Solar Power Satellite or Satellite Power Station
SRB Solid Rocket Booster (Space Shuttle)
SSi_I
E Space Shuttle _Main En_ne
SSTS Space Shuttle Transportation System
TFU Theoretical First Unit
TT Terminal Tug
UCL_ University of California at Los Angeles
%VBS Work Breakdown Structure
_'4GLISH CONVERSIONS
I kilogram (kg) = 2.205 Ib

I meter (m) - 39.372 inches - 32.81 ft
I ton - I000 kg ". 9005 Ib
I square meter., 10.76 square feet
1 m/erometer _m) -- 10 4 meters - 10.3 millimeters
(ram) -- 3.94 x 10.5 inches
°C - (°F-32) 5/9 - °K-2730
I kilometer (kin) - 0.62i4 mile
I square kilometer - 0.3861 square mile
I gravitational _nstamt (g) - 9._)6 m/se_ 2 - 322.
ft/see 2
1 Newl:on - 0--0248 IbF
New'ton-eeeond [N- s_
s_eifi¢ Lmpu_ (I_) - _ _'_'/
- 9.806 (ISP in seconds)
Pressure = N/e,- 2 - 0.689 IbF/in2
I Pa - 1N/m 2
v
XVlli
)1
/Lr_-- =
_ 1
INTBODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
During the late 1960's two exciting future space projects involving immense structures
were proposed. These two ideas, Solar Power Satellites (SPS) and space settlements,
were totally unrelated during their conception and early promotion. The SPS, proposed
by Dr. Peter Glaser of A. D. Little, is a multi-kilometer photovoltaic array located
in geosynchronous orbit to continuously collect solar energy and beam power to earth
via microwaves. Space settlements providing for permanent habitation of large
populations (thousands) were proposed by Dr. Gerard O'Neill of Princeton University.
Both proposals suffered from "concept shock" during their initial promotion, since
material masses needed for in-space construction of a single 10 GW SPS exceeded the
total mass orbited during the Apollo project by two orders of magnitude. Doctors
Glaser and O'Neill recognized this and addressed technical questions to prove that
their respective concepts were theoretically feasible using current technology.
The oil embargo and resulting energy crisis of 1973 initiated Project Independence,
and promoted NASA interest in SPS. NASA brought its Apollo background and Space
Shuttle technology to bear on SPS, and developed a credible program for in-space
assembly of earth-launched components. Dr. O'Neill also received NASA/OAST
help via three summer studies sponsored by Ames Research Center. His construction
approach was by necessity more radical; the extremely massive structures required for
space settlements demanded that an extraterrestrial material source be developed.
Both lunar and asteroids/resources were evaluated for this purpose, and the lunar
source selected as the lower risk option due to Apollo sample data. The only major
ingredient lacking for space settlement justification was a useful product to provide
economic self- sufficiency.
1-1
At this point SPS and space settlements merged, since SPS was the only identified
%,J
product sufficiently massive to support space settlement. Economic analyses con-
ducted under Dr. O'Neill's leadership indicated that SPS construction could be ac-
complished at lower cost using his space manufacturing approach.
The economic analyses for earth--based SPS and space manufactured SPS were ac-
complished independently with dissimilar ground rules and assumptions. Therefore,
a direct comparison of these existing analyses is not meaningful. One objective of
the Lunar Resource Utilization for Space Construction study is to resolve these costing
methodology inconsistencies. Further, alternative techniques for accomplishing lunar
material utilization will be defined and evaluated in an attempt to discover lower risk
space manufacturing methods.
1.2 LUNAR RESOURCES UTILIZATION CONCEPT
The lunar resources utilization (LRU) concept involves use of lunar materials rather
than materials obtained from earth for in-space construction projects. In this concept, %2
lunar surface material would be mined, processed to obtain useful elements such as
silicon, oxygen, aluminum and iron, and fabricated into satellites capable of providing
useful earth services and generating revenues. Lunar resource utilization involves
an expanded manned space program regarding activity locations and total in space
personnel, as compared to an equivalent earth based satellite construction program.
Potential benefits associated with LRU:
• Lower energy requirements for delivery of material from moon to geosynchronous
earth orbit (GEO) than from earth to GEO, results in reduced transportation
costs.
• Significantly reduced earth material requirements since the majority of core-
struction materials are obtained from the moon. Reduced depletion of earth
resources.
1-2
Significantlyreduced earth launch vehicle requirements due to lower payload
requirements. This results in reduced propellant consumption and atmospheric
pollution. Launch vehicle size and flightschedule can also be reduced.
Economic and social gains acruing from these reduced earth activities, assuming
that equivalent revenue generating satellites can be produced with lunar resources.
1.3 STUDY SCOPE
The study developed and compared equivalent LRU and reference earth baseline space
construction scenarios to determine the project size needed for LRU to be economically
competitive. This project size was identified as the material requirements threshold
at which lunar resources utilization may become cost effective. Alternative LRU
techniques were developed and evaluated to determine threshold sensitivity to material
processing location and lunar material transfer methods.
Assessment included conceptual definition of LRU maj or system elements, develop-
ment of element costs, and total program costs. This information was obtained as
much as possible from available literature and results of previous and current NASA-
industry studies. The study goal was to perform an equitable comparison of LRU
concepts with the earth baseline, using compatible ground rules and cost estimating
procedures.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
Overall objectives of the lunar resources utilization study are:
• Establish evaluation criteria to compare manufacture of space structures with
lunar or earth materials
• Define lunar resource utilization concepts and conduct an initial feasibility assess-
ment
• Establish the material requirements threshold where lunar resource utilization
becomes cost effective
1-3
Determine conditions under which a series of decisions to pursue use of lunar
materials would be justified V
Prepare plans and recommendations for further work needed to permit a future
choice between space manufacturing scenarios
i. 5 VOLLrME II ORGAArl ZATION
These objectives were addressed by the seven study tasks identifiedin Table i-I.
The following sections of this volume are organized by study task for the presentation
of results. Each section represents a specific study task, except for Section 5, which
combines all economic analyses activitiesfrom Tasks 5.3, 5.4 and 5.6.
Table 1-1. Lunar Resources Utilization Study Tasks.
Basic Activities Supplementary Tasks

5.1 Comparison methodology & criteria
5.2 Material.requirements range & scenario
development
5.3 Lunar utilization systems concept,. ................ Material characterization during processing;
definition process working fluid requlremenls
5.4 Preliminary LRU cost effectiveness .............. Expanded economic analysis
determination
5.5 Preliminary decision analysis
5.6 Sensilivily & uncertainty analyses ................. Evaluate earth vs space mfg costs
Q
5.7 Recommendations .......................................... Define early technology experiments
The initial study effort, Task 5.1, developed criteria and figures of merit for use in
comparing LRU system concepts with the earth resources baseline. This information
was required early in the study to provide a guide for the concept definition activity of
Task 5.3. Initial space program scenarios and material requirements were also
developed early (Task 5.2) to provide a basis for LRU concept sizing in Task 5.3. The
activities of Task 5.3 identified and defined alternative LRU system concepts, assessed
technical feasibility and determined system costs. In Task 5.4 the material requirements
threshold at which LRU concepts become economically feasible was defined. Tasks 5.2
and 5.3 were iterated following the Midterm for the most promising LRU program
scenarios. A sensitivity and uncertainty analysis was then performed in Task 5.6,
1-4
which identified the key parameters with respect to LRU technical and economic
feasibility. Task 5.5 related the space program scenarios and lunar resource utiliza-
t-ionprograms to define the achievements necessary to justify LRU implementation.
The last task (5.7) used study results as a basis for preparing recommendations and
plans for future LRU activities.
Two supplementary activities were added to expand the study scope. The first pro-
vided for the services of five nationally recognized authorities on space manufacturing
as study technical reviewers. The second authorized special emphasis work which
expanded work on four study tasks. Under Task 5.3 we conducted a material proces-
sing analysis to determine unrecoverable losses and predict excess material require-
ments. Also included was an evaluation of manufacturing steps to determine fluid
requirements, with special attention on water for cooling, washing, etc. An ex-
panded present value economic analysis was conducted within Task 5.4, and a supple-
ment to Task 5.6 evaluated economic comparison results to determine why in-space
production costs were lower than earth-based costs. Under Task 5.7 we identified
LRU-related technologies suitable for experimental verification with Shuttle-based
orbital testing.
SI (metric) units have been used for principal calculations and all reporting of LRU
study results unless specifically noted otherwise. Metric tons (1,000 kg) are indicated
with the symbol T. Prefixes k, M and G denote values of 103, 106, and 109, respec-
tively. Thus, MT refers to millions of metric tons.
1-5
_ I
fa-=_
COMPARISON METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA (TASK 5.1)
TASK - Develop study g-aidelines and the methodology and criteria to be used for
comparing the relative me rtts of using earth versus lunar materials for space
construction. Specific figures of merit usable over a wide range of input variables
are necessary to support the broad parametric nature of the study. Obtain NASA
approval of these guidelines, figures of merit, and the comparison methodology.
APPROACH- A primary study objective is to compare alternative space manu-
facturing concepts which utilize lunar material, with a conventional baseline concept
using earth resources. The objective of this early study task is to develop the
figures of merit and associated methodology that will b_ used later in the study to
accomplish the comparison.
The development of this data can be segregated into four distinct categories:
1) Prepare study guidelines
2) Define evaluation criteria for comparing
• Lunar resource utilization concepts
• The Earth Baseline construction concept
3) Identify meaningful figures of merlt applicable for
• A range of material requirements scenarios
• Competitive lunar resource utilization concepts
4) Develop a comparison methodology for LRU concept evaluation
• Log-lcal approach for applying figures of merit
• Plan for accomplishing study objectives
Each of these categories are addressed in the following four subsections.
2. 1 STUDY GUIDELINES
E
Guidelines for conducting this study were obtained from the NASA JSC Request for
2-1
Proposal, from Convair's response to this RFP, from discussions with cognizant NASA
personnel, and from activities conducted during performance of the first two study tasks.
This list of guidelines was developed during the study to document assumptions
and provide boundary conditions for the scope of our investigation. These boundary
conditions are important since they provide guidance during this initial comparative
assessment of lunar resource utilization. This constrains the scope of the study and
allows useful tentative conclusions to be reached within the allocated funding. The
guidelines also serve as important indicies of what can be done during subsequent
studies to expand the scope of the study and evaluate secondary alternatives.
1) The EarthBaseline large space structure construction program, with which
lunar resources utilization concepts will be compared, shall be the satellite
power system (SPS) preliminary baseline concept described by NASA JSC's
January 25, 1978 systems definition study document.
2) The high construction scenario for lunar resources utilization developed during
study task 5.2, shall also include the satellite power system baseline concept V
of guideline 1. The material used to construct these satellites will be revised
from EarthBaseline requirements during task S. 2 to account for substitution
of lunar resources.
3) Lunar resource utilizationguidelines shall be compatible with those for NASA's
earth resources baseline. These guidelines include the following:
a) SPS operational date is year 2000
b) All ground rectennas sized for 5 GW
c) SPS operations occur in geosynchronous orbit
d) Microwave power transmission system operating frequency is 2.45 GHz
e) Microwave power density is not to exceed 23 and I mW/cm 2 at center and
edge, respectively, of rectenna (rectenna's for Earth Baseline and SPS
constructed with lunar resources will be identical)
f) System life is 30 years with no salvage value or disposition costs
2-2
g) Zero launch rate failure assumed
h) Technology availability date is 1990
i) No cost margins will be used
j) Cost estimates in 1977 dollars
k) System weight growth factor to be reflected in costs
I) RDT&E (including first production unit), production unit, and maintenance
and operations cost estimates should be identifiedseparately
m) KSC launch site w/flyback booster
n) All earth propellants derived from coal, air, and water
o) 500 mission lifeof launch vehicles
p) 50 mission lifeof space-based vehicles
4) The study shall develop and compare alternative lunar resource utilizationcon-
cepts, These alternatives shall include variations in material processing and
fabrication locations. (RFP guideline. )
kJ S) Lunar resource utilizationshall be evaluated for a range of material require-
ments. Specific mission scenarios shall be developed to define these material
requirements. (RFP guideline.)
6) Anorthite shall be the basic lunar resource used for producing silica glass,
silicon solar cells, aluminum, other structural materials and oxygen propellant.
(RFP &_ddeline.) This does not preclude the use of other lunar soils.
7) Production SPS materials will be derived from lunar resources as allowed by
lunar availability,processing/manufacturing difficulty,and quantity require-
ments. Lunar resources will be used for manufacturing all suitable large space
structure components. Suitable components are those that can be easily re-
designed for use of lunar derived materials, and are required in sufficientquantity
to justify an automated space manufacturing facility. The only materials or
products imported from earth are those which are either unavailable in lunar
resources, or which because of complicated manufacturing operations requiring
expensive facilities coupled with relatively small quantity requirements can be
2-3
more economically obtained from earth.
r i
All lunar resource utilization space facilities will be delivered from earth (no
bootstrapping). This guideline simplifies the analysis of alternative lunar
resource utilization concepts since steady state operations can be compared.
Alternative construction options for in-space manufacturing of large structures
such as Satellite Power Systems include:
Steady State A constant SPS production rate following a brief start-up period
to shakedown earth delivered manufacturing facilities.
Bootstrapping A progressively increasing SPS production rate obtained by
starting with modest "seed facilities" which are continuously
expanded using nonterrestrial materials.
Hybrid A combination of bootstrapping facility development to reach
full production capability, followed by steady state product
manufacturing.
Each of these manufacturing options offers potential program benefits as noted
in Table 2--1. The selection of steady state operations for this study was not V
based on the relative merits of the options listed, Its selection was based on
compatibility with the earth baseline so that comparative analyses could be read-
ily performed without extensive manipulation of earth baseline data. The use of
this guideline simplifies the analysis of alternative lunar resource utilization
concepts since steady state operations can be readily compared with earth baseline
SPS construction. If bootstrapping is employed, no sig-nificant period of steady
state operation exists since the in-space production capability is continually
being increased. The bootstrapping technique offers the advantage of reducing
the quantity of facilities which must be initially transported from earth. Its dis-
advantage is that in-space labor intensive activities are required for fabrication
and start-up of expanded processing capability, and a longer start-up period is
required to meet the desired "steady-state" production rate. This guideline
does not preclude utilization of lunar materials for facility requirements when it
is obviously desirable to do so. These applications include process chemicals
2-4
derived from lunar resources, plus lunar base foundations and radiation shield-
ing constructed with lunar materials for mannedfacilities.
9) A prototype or demonstration SPSbuilt from earth materials, and the transporta-
t-ionelements required for its placement, will be neededregardless of resource
origin for production satellites. A common space transportation system "start-
ing point" should be used for evaluating both Earth-based and lunar material based
construction of large space structures. Prior to initiating either of these full-
scale production programs, an earth--basedprototype satellite will be required
to demonstrate program feasibility. This satellite will probably be sufficiently
large to require development of an SDV and OTV for its in-space construction and
orbital placement. Configuration andperformance capability of these two vehicles
should be mutually agreed to by JSC and General Dynamics Convair. These t_vo
"existing" vehicles will then serve as common transportation system elements
available for use by any full-scale material utilization option.
Table 2-1. LI_U Manufacturing Options.
STEADY-STATE
• All facilities constructed and checked out on Earth
• Fabrication and start-up costs readily identified
BOOT STRAPPING
• Lower initial facility investment and delivery costs
• Practical space processing experience can be incorporated when
expanding production capability
HYBRID
• Lower initial facility costs
STEADYSTATE OPTION SELECTED FOR INITIAL STUDY COMPARISON

• Compatibility with Earth baseline
• Material threshold point easily scaled to construction rate
2-5
10) Non-conformity with current NASA budget limitations will not reject an otherwise
promising concept. Some previous space manufacturing studies have used the
current NASA budget as a funding constraint for LRU development and start-up
operations. Lunar resource utilization is a complex endeavor by anyone's
standards. Its scheduling is complicated by the fact that it includes all the earth
baseline construction elements, with the possible exception of HLLV, in addition
to judicious phased development and installation of space manufacturing related
facilities. It is important that space manufacturing capability be developed as
rapidly as possible because the return on investment v-ill not even start until
the facilities are operating. On the other hand, it is not practical to assume that
authorization to proceed with all aspects of lunar resource utilization would occur
simultaneously. Economic benefits are enhanced with an accelerated develop-
ment schedule but the realities of budget constraints must be dealt with. A care-
ful balance between these forces tending to accelerate and delay development
L __
must be maintained to arrive at a reasonable and credible development plan.
11) Fixed production rates for a 30 year period will be used. Any build-up sequence
required to reach these production rates is assumed to be sufficiently brief so
that it has no appreciable influence on the average steady state operations. This
gmideline is only valid when used in conjunction with guideline 8. When lunar
resource processing facilities start production, they will probably operate at a
rate considerably below their designed capacity. The period required to reach
full production should be relatively brief, however, since all the equipment
necessary for achieving this rate is included in the initial facility. All initial
equipment checkout, pilot runs, and other preproduction space activities shall
be considered part of the development or start-up phase. Thus, full steady state
production should be achieved in a year or two, which has a negli_ble effect on
the average production rate over the entire 30 year operating span.
2-6
12) Lunar mining equipment, material handling and logistics facilities, and in-
space material processing and fabrication facilities shall all be automated to at
least the level of modern comparable facilities currently in use, or being plan-
ned for use, on earth. Estimates on facility mass, power requirements, and
personnel requirement will be based on this state-of-the-art level of automation.
2. 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA
Two types of criteria are normally employed for concept evaluation - quantitative
and qualitative. Quantitative criteria include items such as cost, energy consump-
tion and schedules, while qualitative criteria encompass items such as technical
feasibility and programmatic considerations. As a first step in developing criteria,
we reviewed existingdata on space manufacturing approaches and space con-
st-ruction programs such as SPS to determine what were considered key issues and
parameters. This collection of criteria, shown in Table 2-2 were used as potential
candidates for this study.
The criteria listed in Table 2-2 have been separated into two categories; quantitative,
which are generally cost related, and qualitative which are less cost related and
more Judgemental. Many of these judgemental criteria can also be assessed in
quantitative terms as well as qualitatively. This quantitative assessment often is
accomplished via economic indicies, i.e., cost.
For purposes of the Lunar Resources Utilization for Space Construction study, the
following candidates have been selected as evaluation criteria:
• Cost shall be the basic criterion for assessing lunar resources utilization.
• The earth material requirement criterion shall be used for initial com-
parison and concept screening.
• Secondary judgemental criteria shall include technical feasibility,
programmatic considerations, and environmental impacts.
2-7
The other candidatesin Table 2-2 are also valid criteria, but are less applicable
for an initial feasibility assessment than those selected.
The next step is to convert these criteria into specific figures of merit suitable
for LRU concept assessment and comparison with the Earth Baseline construction
technique.
Table 2-2. Candidate Evaluation Criteria.
Quantitative Qualitative
Total Program Cost Technical Feasibility
Development Programmatic Considerations
Fabrication Economic Risk
Transportation Schedule Risk
Operations
Support Environmental Impacts
Transportation Energy Comparison Technical Spinoffs
Earth Energy Consumption Humanistic Spinoffs
Profitability Public Support/Confidence
Development/Start-up Schedule International Involvement
Earth Material Requirement
2.3 FIGL_FtES OF MERIT
One or more specific figures of merit can be developed from each of these evaluation
criteria. Initial analyses, conducted during proposal preparation, showed that
the earth material requirement was an excellent figure of merit for preliminary
concept comparison. The earth material requirement was defined as the kilograms
of material that must be launched from earth (including propellants) for each kilo-
gram of large space structureconstruction material. This figure of merit was
applied for steady-state comparisons. The earth material requirement (EM:R) is an
2-8
extremely usehtl figure of merit since it reflects the overall steady state operational
efficiency of lunar resource utilization options, as compared to the Earth Baseline.
The objective of LRU options is to construct large satellites primarily with lunar
materials. This should significantly reduce the amount of earth components and
supplies required, which also reduces the traffic over the very expensive earth to
GEO route. This reduction in earth material requirements then, is a key ingredient
in assessing the overall viability of any lunar resource utilization concept. The lower
its EMR, as compared with the earth construction baseline, the better that concepts
chances are of being a feasible LRU concept.
Cost is a basic figure of merit. Total program cost is always a criterion;
however, specific elements of cost can also be si_,cn_.tficant for comparisons. Develop-
ment cost is often a key criterion in program decisions, since it involves early funding.
Startup costs are similar to development costs, since expenditures for implanting LRU
transportation elements and facilities may occur over an extended period v,_ithout any
payback. Therefore, the combination of development and start-up costs have been used
as an important figure of merit in determining the investment required for alternative
lunar resource utilization concepts.
Steady state production costs are useful for determining the relative efficiency of
candidate concepts. Approximate production cost magnitudes for the Earth Baseline
SPS program are shown in Figure 2-1. From Figure 2-1 it is apparent that nearly one-
fifth the total cost is associated with the earth-based ground reception system and these
costs are of no concern to the assessment of earth versus Im_ar materials for space
construction. With the ground reception system cost removed, the remaining costs
are divided between satellite manufacturing and transportation.
Satellite manufacturing costs are important criteria because they provide a standard
from which to derive incremental costs (higher or lower) associated with manufacturing
2-9
V
SATELLITE
COMPONENT8
$_. 1B
FABRICATION
$1.2B
& ASSEMBLY TRANSPORTATION
$10.1B
GROUND RECTENNA
$4.5B
AVERAGE COST PER St_ $22.9B
Figure 2-1. Average unit SPS costs.
in space or on the moon. The transportation cost, which is slightly greater than
the SPS material and manufacturing cost, is extremely important because of its
magnitude and sensitivity to alternate scenarios utilizing lunar materials. Trans-
portation, especially from earth to LEO, is considered a principal cost driver.
Total transportation cost includes contributions for transfer of cargo and personnel
between each activity location. These transportation cost contributors are listed in
Table 2-3 for the Earth Baseline and lunar resource utilization scenarios.
The total manufacturing cost is comprised of purchased parts and in-space
processed and fabricated items. These manufacturing cost contributors are identified
in Table 2-4 for both the Earth Baseline and LRU concepts.
_10
r
Table 2-3. Transportation cost Table 2-4. Manufacturing cost

contributors. contributors.
Transportation Cost Contributors Manufacturing Cost Contributors

Baseline Scenario - Earth Materials Baseline Scenario - Earth Materials
Cargo Earth to LEO Earth Purchase Price
Cargo LEO to GEO LEO Logistics
Personnel Earth to LEO & Return LEO Fabrication & Assembly
Personnel LEO to GEO & Return GEO Final Assembly
Space & Lunar Based Scenarios Space & Lunar Based Scenarios
All Baseline Scenario Cost Factors, plus All Baseline Scenario Cost Factors, plus
Lunar Material Moon to L 2 LLO Logistics
Lunar Material L 2 to SMF } Moon to SMF
Lunar Mining
Cargo LEO to LLO Lunar Beneficiation
Cargo LEO to SMF Lunar Logistics
Cargo LLO to Moon Space (or Lunar) Processing
Cargo LLO to SMF & Return Stock Forming
Cargo SMF to L 2 Component Manufacturing
Cargo SMF to GEO SMF Logistics
Personnel LEO to LLO & Return SMF Fabrication & Assembly
Personnel LEO to SMF & Return
Personnel LLO to Moon & Return
Personnel LLO to SMF & Return
Personnel SMF to L 2 & Return
Personnel SMF to GEO & Return
The combination of these individual figures of merit; development cost, start-up cost,
steady state transportation costs, and steady state manufacturing costs and the cost for
operating completed satellitesyields the total program cost of each concept for the
operational period selected.
The selected judgemental evaluation criteria can also be used as specific figares of merit.
Table 2-5 shows these criteria.
Although these Judgements/figures of merit can be expressed quantitatively, they will
be used qualitatively during the initial assessment of LRU concepts. During performance
J
\
of Task 5.6, sensitivity and uncertainty analyses, however, the first t_vo judgemental risk
2-11
Table 2-5. Judgemental considerations,
Evaluation Criteria Figures of Merit
Technical Feasibility Technical Risk
Programmatic Considerations Economic Risk

Schedule Risk
Environmental Impacts Material Scarcity

Air Pollution
Noise Pollution
areas will be assessed quantitatively as cost and technical uncertainties. These are
reflected as cost differences to nominal cost estimates.
To summarize, total program cost shall be the basic criterion for assessing lunar
resources utilization. Other secondary assessment criteria include earth material
requirements and environmental considerations.
V
2.4 COMPARISON METHODOLOGY
The figares of merit described in the preceding discussion could be applied simul-
taneously to each lunar resource utilization concept. This would allow total program
cost comparisons of all LRU candidates with the Earth Baseline. The development
of all these cost elements for each LRU candidate would be very time consuming. In
addition, a large percentage of this effort would be expended on assessing non-
competitive LRU concepts. There must exist a procedure by which certain figures
of merit can be initially used to assess and modify/combine a wide range of LRU
options. This incremental assessment technique would mold these many options
into several highly competitive representative concepts which would then be subjected
to the complete total program costing analysis and subsequent Earth Baseline com-
parison.
This is a very desirable approach, but its implementation is dependent on the answer
to these questions:
2-12
x..j I) How can we Justify in incremental assessment approach?
2) Which cost criteria have the greatest influence; steady state production or
development and startup?
3) In what order should the individual figures of merit be applied to provide a
valid incremental assessment?
To resolve these questions, a previous economic analysis of lunar resource utilization
was used in an attempt to understand the influence of individual cost elements (or
figures of merit) on the system's total program cost. This previous analysis per-
formed by Mark Hopkins during the 1975 NASA Ames Summer Study on Space Settle-
ments, is documented in references 1 and 2. This data has been modified tO obtain
some'compatibility with the JSC Earth Baseline in areas with similar requirements.
Also, costs clearly related to large habitats have been deleted, learning effects have
been omitted, and costs have been adjusted from 1975 to 1977 dollars. An explanation
V
a
of these adjustments is contained in Section 3.3. It must be emphasized that cost
data from this 1975 analysis was generated with ground rule s and assumptions totally
incompatible with those subsequently used for the NASA-JSC Earth Baseline SPS
Economic Analysis. Modification of this 1975 data has been limited to only the most
obvious discrepancies. The only purpose for using this information is to gain an early
understanding of the relative importance of steady state production costs as compared
to development costs.
The results of the Modified 1975 Summer Study Economic Analysis are shown in
Figure 2-2. The lower crosshatched region contains development and startup costs,
the center band contains costs for the earth based ground power reception system, and
the upper crosshatched region contains production costs. Costs for 30:years l_ve
been shown as a function of the number of satellites in the system.
=----_
L
V
Research and development costs are adjusted to $139.7 billion, as described in
Section 3.3. The support system costs include development of mass launchers, mass
2-13
20O0 V
MODIFIED DATA FROM

1975 SUMMER STUDY TOTAL
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF COST
]500
LUNAR RESOURCE
TOTAL COST UTIUZATION
$ BILLIONS
(1977) SYSTEM
.1000 TO CONSTRUCT
SATE LLITES
500 CONSTRUCT
EARTH RECTENNAE
)RT
RESEAR{
0 30 60 90 120 150
I0 GW SPS QUANTITY CONSTRUCTED IN 30 YEARS
Figure 2-2. Lunar resource utilization cost projections from previous work.
v
catchers, transportation system elements, space fabrication facilities, and the lunar
base needed to support the operational program. The construction of earth rectennae
is a large share of total cost, but one that is independent of earth or lunar resources
selection for construction of the satellite. In a program of 30 or more satellites, the
largest single cost element is operating the system to construct satellites. This cost
includes materials from the earth, processing of lunar materials into satellite com-
ponents, fabrication labor, the crews that operate the support system, and trans-
portation including crew rotation and resupply, but excludes the effects of learning.
SPS maintenance includes only the materials, labor, and transportation related to
maintaining operational satellites to ensure their continued production of electric power.
From Figure 2-2, it may be concluded that, in a large scale system, operating the
system to produce satellites is the major contributor to cost. In fact, if construction
costs for the earth rectennae are ignored, combined in-space operations costs
(inclading maintenance), exceed those for research and development and support
2-14
F
system acquisition, at the 25 satellite construction level.
The answers to our three questions, therefore, are:
i) Previous LRU economic analysis results can be used to indicate the relative
i iiill
¸ 2)
importance
For a construction
of cost elements,
rate of one
and justify
10 GW satellite
an incremental
power system
assessment
per year
approach.
or more,
in-space construction, maintenance, and operating costs have the greatest
economic influence on total program costs.
3) Based on this, steady state figures of merit are a useful discriminator for
early comparative evaluation of LRU system concepts. Specifically, steady
state earth material requirements will be used for the initial screening and
comparative evaluation of alternative LRU concepts.
2.4.1 COi_[PARISON APPROACH. The desired end result of comparing satellite
construction with earth supplied versus lunar derived materials is to define the
program size (quantity of satellites) at which a cost crossover occurs. This can only
be determined by developing costs for a lunar resource utilization program. Un-
fortunately, many alternative concepts exist for constructing satellites with lunar
materials, and it is not obvious which of these might result in the lowest program
cost.
To resolve this difficulty, an approach has been developed which performs comparative
assessment and preliminary screening of alternate LRU concepts while obtaining the
information required for costing. This approach analyzes LRU concept performance
during steady state operations to develop vehicle and facility sizing requirements. The
comparative index used for assessing alternative concepts is earth material require-
ments (EMR).
xL2 The overall approach to LRU assessment is depicted in Figure 2-3. Initially, candidate
lunar resource utilization concepts employing alternative transportation techniques and
2-15
COMPARISON MATRIX
LRU LRU COST JUDGEMENT RANK
candidate
concepts DY STATE OPS COMPARISON
Earth launched LRU life

LRU system k Steady state cycle cost
material units
element L._,,_ operational • Development
needed to support
costs • Manufacturing
space conslruction COSIS I."
• Transportation
Iterate elements Minning Development • Operations
& LRU • Support
within each LRU Processing
concept to obtain: Manufacturing startup costs
Reasonable sets Transportation
• Cargo )arison
of elements for
• Raw mall matl reqts
each basic concept
• Personnel threshold
Prelim sensitivity
Habitats
intormalion re:
Prop depots
• %LRUinSPS
Power systems
• Propellanl sources Earth baseline lile
cycle cost from
• Transporl elticiency
JSC/Boeing SPS
• Process efficiency
definition program
Figure 2-3. Comparison approach.
processing locations are postulated. These concepts are evaluated to determine the
earth material requirements (EMR) for supporting satellite production. This LRU
concept assessment technique employs the steady state material logistics scenario com-
parison approach to iterate LRU candidates and obtain a reasonably low EMR. The
iteration procedure selects and combines LRU system elements into several highly
competitive concepts. The resulting "optimized" steady state material logistics
scenarios are then used to size each LRU system element.
System element costs are then developed based on this steady state sizing information.
Some elements are similar or identical for more than one LRU system concept,
therefore, so are their costs. Element costs include development, production, and
2-16
operating costs. The steady state sizing information can also be used to define start-
up requirements and associated costs,
System element costs for each LRU concept are then combined with start-up costs to
obtain the total program cost, which is compared with the earth baseline life cycle
costs to determine the material requirements threshold (or cost crossover) point.
This material requirements threshold point is determined for each competitive LRU
system concept.
Further comparison at the overall system and system element level can then be
accomplished to provide additional insight into specific parameters associated with
each LRU concept. These comparisons include both economic and judgemental
criteria. Economic indicies encompass transportation and manufacturing costs of
each LRU systems concept. Judgements/factors embody consideration of start-up
difficulties, schedule risks, and environmental effects.
The detailed procedure used to accomplish this assessment of lunar resources utiliza-
tion is further defined in the following paragraphs, along with reference task and report
section numbers where this information is contained.
ESTABLISH SATELLITE PRODUCTION REQUIREI%IENTS -- Development of a
representative manufacturing scenario and its associated material requirements
was accomplished to permit LRU assessment. (Task 5.2, Section 3)
DEFINE CANDIDATE CONCEPTS- Alternative lunar resources utilization
concepts were differentiated by in-space activity locations and the transport
techniques employed for transfer of raw materials, cargo, and personnel.
Generalized LRU systems concepts representative of space based, lunar based,
and combination space/lunar based operating scenarios were initially postulated.
(Task 5.3, Section 4)
2-17
DEVELOP STEADY STATE MATERIAL LOGISTICS SCENARIOS- Steady state
V
material logistics scenarios were developed for each of these alternative Con-
cepts to determine the quantity of earth and lunar materials required to support
a space construction program. An example nmterial logistics scenario is shown
in Figure 2-4. LRU element sensitivity was developed by assessing the effect of
various options on earth material requirements. The earth material requirement
(EMR) is defined as the kilograms of material that must be launched from earth
(including propellants) for each kilogram of completed large space structure in
geosynchronous orbit. This figure of merit was applied for steady-state com-
parisons. EMR is an extremely useful figure of merit since it reflects the overall
steady state operational efficiency of lunar resource utilization options, as com-
pared to the earth baseline, and permits elimlnation of non-competitive concepts
prior to costing. (Task 5.8,Section 4)
ITERATE TO OBTAIN IMPROVED CONCEPTS WITH LOW EARTH MATERIAL
REQUIREMENTS -- Three representative LRU concepts were obtained by an V
EARTH LEO GEO LLO MOON
2.0LSS IS"V .I '.0L-'S IEL,_CT.,clZ tss I

00167 LS _ m" qlb I 0.0167 LS L_ _,,, _ 0 J 1,000 PERSON 5_500 PERSON
""""°'""/ L ,"'°' lo,o,-,.,-j,.o,,,,,],,c,,.,T,, ,,,:,,.,,-,,

li!i_,s":
........
iiiilTO,A_
--
_d ,.,,,.,
4744 LO 2
T_! i192.1 MA?L' "_]i _ "!::: " :_: • GEO / I .724 CllEM
]_i_i_i UN,TS
_.':._:_-_;_i_i::_TOTAt;:_i_::l / ii::ii_."_.TL.-:.:ttl
I;:::10 OMATL ::::l AT _ .i ._1
i O.09LS
i_ii::iEARTH " i!_i, "" " ' • o" ,,,/s'l ,f
H_2 I 9.76 LO2JLH 2 i . ,_" ' , | •

I 5_.99 LO 2
.724 CHEM L-m aiJ 5"92 LH2 Iii!1111 724CH

O.O9 LS |Sfl "i .724 CHFM r ii ELI=CTRIC 02 OTV m---'_--m_ "1_ i 0!:: _ EAtl I ..,,_ / t
,,,.,,0_,,..,
! I _o,,.s / "
I ...... I ,'y._;_,:_:_
_ ,
t Z.O2 _/" II:i15,3MATL
UN|TS::iI
I ",_._-ELECTRIC 02 OTV ! I./ :iiTOTAL LUNAR i_l
.724 fl i_ ] 3.55 LO 2 _ lii$O! L PROCESSED ;ii
Figure 2-4. Example steady-state cargo transfer scenario for a LRU concept
with conventional chemical Lunar Transfer Vehicle. V
2-18
rF _
iterative process described in Fig_zre 2-5, which used minimum EMR as the
selection criteria. These three LRU implementation techniques are identified
in Table 2-6 as Concepts B, C and D, along with the reference earth baseline,
Concept A. They are characterized by the material processing location and the
launch vehicle employed for transporting material from the moon. Concept
development resulted in the use of similar transportation elements for transfer
of cargo and personnel between activity locations other than lunar surface to low
lunar orbit. (Task 5.3, Section 4)
Steady state Earth material Determines vehicle &

material requirements facility sizing reqts
logistics
scenario
Operations
Lunar material
requirements
Sensitivity data
#
U
required Enables generation
Io construct of costing data
geosynchronous
satellites • Development
• Acquisition
• Start up
• Operations
Fi=o_re 2-5. Iterative approach for developing representative LRU concepts.
Table 2-6. Alternative construction concepts.
Earth Material Lunar material launch vehtcle

Designalion launch processing Propellant
vehicle location Description Propellant source
Reference
earth A HLLV Earth
baseline
!LRU B SDV In-space Mass driver Electricity Solar or

concept catapult & nuclear
mass catcher Oxygen Moon
LRU C SDV Lunar Chemical Oxygen & Moon

concept surface rocket hydrogen Earth
LRU D SDV Lunar Chemical Moon

Oxygen &
V concept surface rocket aluminum Moon
2-19
DETERMINE VEHICLE & FACILITY SIZING REQUIREMENTS -- Logistics
V
scenarios, which define earth and lunar material needs including vehicle
propellants at each activitylocation, were employed in conjunction with the
required satelliteproduction rate to determine vehicle and facilitysizing
requirements data. (Task 5.3, Section 4)
GENERATE ELEMENT COST DATA -- System element costs were then develop-
ed based on this steady state sizing information. Some elements were similar or
identical for more than one LRU system concept, therefore, so were their costs.
Element costs included development, production, and operating costs. (Task 5.3,
Section 5)
DEVELOP START-UP INFORMATION & COST -- The steady state sizing in-
formation was a/so used to define start-up requirements and associated costs.
OBTAIN TOTAL LRU CONCEPT PROGRAM COSTS- System element costs
for each LRU concept were then combined with start-up costs to develop total
program costs for each nominal LRU concept over a fixed 30 year operational
period. (Task 8.3, Section 5)
COMPARE WITH EARTH BASELINE PROGRAM COST TO DETERMINE
MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS THRESHOLD -- LRU program costs were then
compared with earth baseline costs"developed using compatible groundrules,
to define a preliminary material requirements economic threshold at depicted in
Figure 2-6. This threshold determined the material utilizationlevel in geo-
synchronous orbit at which LRU became competitive with earth resource
utilization. (Task S.4, Section 5)
2-20
Am_
i%.J GENERATE COST SENSITIVITY AND UNCERTAINTY DATA -- This initial
nominal threshold was then revised to account for the effects of cost and
technical uncertainties, as shown in Figure 2-7. (Task 5.6, Section 5)
PERFORM PRESENT VALUE ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF LRU CONCEPTS
& THE EARTH BASELINE -- Total nominal program costs were revised to
account for cost discounting (a present value economic analysis) and compared.
uu
LUNAR NOMINAL
THRESHOLD
RESOURCE /
EARTH BASELINE
I 1 i
JI-
INCREASING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT
Figure 2-6. Initial nominal economic comparison of LRU

and Earth Baseline concepts.
2-21
%,I
f I_ THRESHOLD RANGE L
t'H' LUNAR
_"_ _- RESOURCE
_- _ r- UTILIZATION .._.,_77//////
_ _" _ THRESHOLD
z_.u ! I I
INCREASING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT
Figure 2-7. Comparison of LRU and Earth Baseline concepts

including cost uncertainties.
L m
REFERENCES
1. Johnson, R. D., et al, "Space Settlements a Design Study," NASA SP-413,
NASA Scientific Technical Information Office, Washin_on, D. C., 1977.
2. Hopkins, M. M., "A Preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis of Space Colonization,"
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 30, No. 8, August 1977.
%,,,
2-22
MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS AND SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT (TASK 5.2)
TASK - Establish requirements for usable construction materials in earth orbit
via three or more space program scenarios. These scenarios are to be time
phased sequences of space construction activity, m_d will be geaerat._d ,1sing
NASA JSC consultation and guidance.
APPROACH - Identification of mission scena_'los and associated satellite material
requirements is separated into three phases as shown in Figure 3-1. Initially,
separate scenarios will be developed to represent a low, two intermediate, and a
high material usage model which we expect will "bracket" the cost effectiveness
point of lunar resource utilization. A time period of 30 years of operation will be
IDENTIFY
MISSION IDENTIFY
EARTH I LUNAR
SCENARIOS MATERIAL
DEVELOP
REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL J REQUIREMENTS
Four scenarios Construction mass Revised satellite

Specific missions Total Total mass
Quantity of satellites Yearly. Materials
per year Material requirements Material requirements
30-year period Schedule Lunar/Earth
(approximately} Mass Schedule
Mass
Figure 3-I. Lunar material requirements development.
considered. The second step is to identify the time-phased accumulated earth
material requirements for satellite construction. Finally, the corresponding
lunar material substitutes and remaining earth materials from which these
satellites could be constructed will be determined. Previous studies have indicated
that a very large quantity of satellite construction material is needed _o justify
development, delivery, and start-up of lunar mining, processing, and manufacturing
3-1
facilities.Satellites other than satellitepower systems (SPS) will be evaluated
to determine if their total material requirements approach the quantity needed to V
justifyuse of lunar resources. If not, their material requirements when combined
with SPS will be investigated to determine the sensitivityof the total requirements
(percentage of each material) with and without these other-than-SPS required
materials.
3.1 GROUNDRULES AND ASSUMPTIONS
There are several realistic assumptions which can be made concerning candidate
satellites for lunar resource utilization:
1) They should either be multiple identical satellite systems or consist of a family
of similar satellites. This is valid since construction of unique satellites
cannot be used to justify an in-space mass production facility. This is true for
satellite construction using either earth or lunar-derived materials.
2) The satellites should be located in a high earth orbit such as geosynchronous.
}
This is important since the entire lunar resource utilization concept's economic
effectiveness is based on reduced transportation costs. The AV required to
bring lunar material to LEO is approximately 73% of that for orbiting material
from earth's surface. This is not a sufficient velocity mar_cd.n for realizing
any substantial economic benefit. For comparison, the AV for lunar material
utilization at GEO is 37% of that for earth material.
3) Lunar resources will be used for manufacturing all suitable large space
structure components. Suitable components are those that can be easily
redesigned for use of lunar derived materials, and are required in sufficient
quantity to justify an automated space manufacturing facility.
The only materials or products imported from earth are those which are either
unavailable in lunar resources, or which because of complicated manufacturing
operations requiring expensive facilities coupled with relatively small quantity
requirements can be more economically obtained from earth.
3-2
3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF LOW SCENARIO TOTAL MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS
The low scenario shall consist of proposed satellites which satisfy 8Toundrules 1)
and 2), with the exception of Satellite Power Systems, _,hlbh are purposely omitted
from this scenario. Definition of all candidate satellites was obtained from the
Aerospace Corporat/on report entitled "Advanced Space System Concepts _nd their
Orbital Support Needs (1980 - 2000)", Reference 1o The forty-two civilian
initiatives identified in this report to provide future observation, communications,
aud support services were evaluated per gToundrules 1) and 2) to obtain the 25 candidate
service satellites listed in Table 3-1. Some of these candidates have beeu organized
into gTOupS appropriate for an early (1985) geosynchronous public service platform,
and a subsequent (1990) expanded public service platform. Combining these various
service functions into two large multifunctions/platforms will probably result in
some function inte_oTation, with a corresponding reduction in total satellite mass
requirements. This potential benefit has not been included in Table 3-1 data for
PSP 1 and PSP 2. Six other service satellites are identified in Table 3-1 which
satisfy our two Eroundrules, but should not be integrated into either public service
platform due to their positioning requirements or mass.
Tots/ material requirements have been determined by the quantity of these satellites
which will be needed during a thirty year period. This quantity has been estimated
based on the current gross nations/product (GNP), geographical conditions, and
number of large cities for individual countries or groups of countries. Table 3-2
shows the approximate GNP ranking of these countries/re_:rlons. The re_ons
were arbitrarily comprised of quasi-compat/ble countries in the same geographical

area.
The estimated quantity of coastal anti-collision radar satellites (CO-9) is based on
coastline length, GNP ranking, and the importance of shipping to that country or
re,on. Two CO-9 satellites are required for each 4000 km of monitored coastline.
A total quantity of 30 has been selected out of the 66 needed for complete coverage.
3-3
Table 3-1. Candidate satellites for tile low material requirements scenario.
Geosynchronous (1985) NO * Mass Power Antenna Constellation

(T) (kW) ( m 2) Size
Fire Detection CO-2 11o "i6 2.0 100 1

Water Level & Fault Movement Indicator CO-3 0o 36 0.25 - 1
Synchronous Meteorological Sat. CO- 12 1.36 1.0 20 3 (Global)
Interplanetary TV Link CO-14 0.45 0° 25 210 1
Diplomatic/U. N. llotlines CC-10 1. 313 1.0 10 3 (Global)
Early Public Service Platform PSP-1 14.9 4.5 340 Each Nation
or Region
Geosynchroaous (1990) No * Mass Power Antenna Constellation

(T) (kW) ( m2) Age
Border Surveillance CO-8 3.64 20.0 8,800 1 (Per Border)

0rban/Police Wrist Radio CC-2 8.18 75.0 3,400 1
Disaster Communications Set CC-3 8.18" 75.0 3,400 1
Electronic Mall Tmmsmlssion CC-4 9.09 15.0 3,400 1
Advanced T.V. Broadcast CC-6 6.36 • 150.0 300 1
Voting/Polling Wrist Set CC-7 5.91 90.0 1,900 1
National Information Services CC-8 9.09 . 15.0 3,400 4 (National)
Personal Communications Wrist Radio CC-9 7.27 21.0 3,400 1
3-D tlolographic Teleconfercucing CC-I1 6.82 220.0 300 1
Vehicle/Package Locater CC-12 9.09 23.0 15,000 2 (National)
Personal Navigation Wrist Set CS-7 1.36 2.0 13,100 1
Energy Monitor CS-9 4.55 23.0 1,900 1
Vehicular Speed Limit Control CS- 10 ] 0.00 430.0 16,500 1
Burglar Alarm/Intrusion Detection CS-14 7.27 1.0 3,400 1
Expanded Public Service l)[atform PSP-2 133.2 1) 228 103) 400 Each Nation
or Region
Synchronous Elliptical (1985) No * Mass Power Ante na Constellation

Small Individual Satellites (T). (kW) (m Size
Nuclear Fuel Locater CO-7 1.36 0.3 150 4 (National)

Glottal Search & Rescue Locater CC-1 0.68 1.0 10 20 (Global)
Raft Anti-Collision System CS-13 1.36 0.5 150 3 (National
Geosynchronous 1990 & On No * Mass Power Antenna Constellation
Large Indivldu||l Satellites (T) (kW) (m 2) Size
Coastal Anti-Collision Itadtr CO-9 909, 1 3,000 1. lx100 2 (Each 4,000

km of coast)
Night Illuminator CS-[I 4.5.5 l. 2 1.0xl06 1 (Lrg. City)

Power Relay Satellites CS-15 272.7 - 0.78x106 100 (Global)
* From Aerospace Corporation Report ( I )
(
:i JltJ J ! i
(!i!
Table 3-2. Information employed for estimating satellite quantities
Approx. Country Number Increments

GNP * or of Countries of 4,000 km Quantity of Satellites Cities over
1973 Region in Region Coastline Required 1980 -- 2010 0.8 x 106
($B) (Estimated) CO-9 PSP-1 PSP-2 CS-6 Population *
1,295 United States (USA) (1) 3 6 2 2 44 50
1,127 Western Europe .(11) 2 4 2 2 20 25

q --
Russia (USSR) (1) 1 2 2 2 20 25
413 Japan (1) 1 2 1 1 10 10
China (1) 1 0 1 12 20
173 Scandinavia (5) 2 2 1 5 5
160 South America (11) 4 2 2 1 10 21
I
ol Eastern Europe (8) 1 0 1 6 8
119 Canada (1) 2 2 1 3 3
115 Arabs (Plus Israel) (15) 1 2 2 1 6 12
105 Southern Asia (India) (6) 4 0 1 10 19
8O Africa (Central & Svuth) (29) 4 0 1 1 6
64 Austrailia/New Ze',fland (2) 4 4 1 1 1 5
57 Central Amel_ica (7) 2 2 1 1 3
27 Taiwa n/Phillippines/H. K. (3) 1 2 1 1 4
i
I
TOTALS 30 ! 20 10 150 I
* 1977 World Almatmc and Book of Facts - Published by Newspaper Enterprise Assoc. Inc. N.Y.
At least one early public service platform (PSP-1) has been estimated for each of
the fifteen re_ons identified. Although one platform should meet total USA require-
ments, five regions (including USA) each have an additional platform to satisfy large
information volume, land area, or nationalisGc needs. This results in a total
requirement of 20 PSP-1 satellites.
Similar rationale has been used for estimating the ten expanded public service
platforms (PSP-2) required, except that PSP-2 was limited to the large most
technically advanced regions and fastest growing industrial countries/re_ons.
The estimated quantity of night illuminator satellites (CS-6) was based on the
number of cities with populations exceeding 800,000, the re_on's GNP ranking,
and energy considerations. 150 CS-6 satellites, capable of illuminating 70% of
all regions cities, have been selected.
These quantity estimates have been combined with the satellite mass projections of
Table 3-1, to obtain a low material requirements scenario. This scenario, shown in
Table 3-3, has an estimated total mass of 63,230 metric tons for all civilian
satellites except $PS.
3.3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF NOMINAL MATERIAL THRESHOLD
In Table 3-3 we have developed a low material requirements scenario. The next
step is to determine if this low scenario could be within the material requirements
_hreshold range needed to justify lunar resources utilization. To evaluate this,
cost data developed during the 1975 NASA Ames Summer Study on Space Settlements
by Mark Hopkins (References 2 and 3) have been compared with NASA-JSC's
Earth Baseline Concept (Reference 4).
Although many inconsistancies exist in the guidelines aud methodology us_cl for these
two estimates, their comparison should yield • "preliminary nominal threshold point."
3-6
Tabte 3-3. L,_wmaterial requirements scenario does not include satellite power stations
Satellite Description M_ss Quantity Quantity Estimate Total

(T) 20 Years Rationale Mass (T)
Early Public Service Platform (PSP-1) 14.9 2o ,_1 each for major 298
Fire detection, Meteorological, Indust. Nations
W;2ter Level & Fault Movement, plus regions contain-
Diplomatic Hotlines, etc. ing compatible
Countries
Expanded Public Service Platform (PSP-2) 133.2 10 Top 50 percent of 1,332

Border Surveillance, Wrist Radio, industrial nations
Disaster Communications, Electronic and regions using
Mail, Navigation, Vehicle/package early public service
!
L.3eator, etc. platform (PSP-1)
Nuclear Fuel Locater (CO-7) 1.4 80 4 per PSP-1 Region 109
Rail Anti-Collision Sys. (CS-13) 1. t 6o 3 per PSP-1 Region 109
Global Search & Rescue (CC-1) 0.7 20 Aerospace Report 14
Coastal Anti-Collision Radar (CO-9) 909.1 30 2 per Indust. Coast- 27,273

line
Night Illuminator (CS-6) 45.5 150 70% of major cities 6,825
Power Relay Satellite (CS-15) 272.7 100 Aerospace Report 27,270
TOTAL MASS 63,230

To determine this preliminary threshold point, comparative development/start_p
costs and operations/production costs must be obtained.
Table 3-4 displays system element development/_art-up costs for the JSC
baseline, which were obtained directly from the Jsc January 25, 1978 reference
d_cument, and corresponding estimates for similar elements based on 1975 Summer
Study res,Alts. Since the 1975 Summer _udy was simultaneously estimating the con-
struction of both colonies and satellite power systems, it is difficult to accurately
separate their corresponding costs. Summary data indicates a total development/
start-up cost range from $111.5 B to $175.7 B for start-up and manufacture of the
initial SPS. The minimum value was used in Table 3-4 to account for hid=len colony
costs and obtain a lower nominal threshold point.
Comparison of the figures displayed indicates several missing costs, plus low
estimates for identical requirements. Note that the summer study did not include
sufficient research funding (it should exceed that needed for the earth baseline)
V
or development costs for the personnel OTV, HLLV launch facilities, aud new earth
facilities needed for manufacturing SPS components. The initial earth rectennas,
which are identical, are underestimated by $3.5B.
1975 summer study cost adjustments,which account for these missing and under-
estimated items,are included in Table 3-5. The 1975 costs have been escalated to
1977 levels using the GNP deflation of 11.0 percent. The basic research _md rectenna
costs have been adjusted (+$8.2 B) for equivalance with the NASA baseline cost.
Missing costs of $4.3B have been added for the POTV and HLLV launch facilities.
Fewer SPS hardware facilities will be required on earth for the LRT_ concept,
so one third of the earth baseline cost, or $3.4 B was added for this purpose. The
adjusted R&D cost is $139.7 billion, or $53 billion more than the JSC earth resources
baseline.
3-8
Table 3-4. SPSdevelopment/startup cost comparison
Earth Resources Lunar Resources

JSC Baseline Summer Study
197'7 $ (B) 1975 $ (B)
Basic Research 6.3 1.6
Development Costs 36.3 50.9

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle II.I 9.3
Personnel Launch Vehicle 1.9 *
Cargo OTV 1.7 0.4
Personnel OTV I. 5 Missing
Lunar Transfer Vehicle N/A 1° 7
Inter-Librational TV N/A 2.0
Construction Base(s) 6.9 12.3
Processing Facilities Incl. 16.6
Mass Driver/Catcher N/A 6.7
• Launch Facilities (KSC) 2.8 Missing
SPS Hardware Facilities 10.4 Missing
Acquisition - Startup 44.1 59,3

Transportation 13.0 34.2
Construction Base(s) 13.8 14.6
First SPS 12,8 9.5
Initial Rectennas 4,5 1o0
To_al thru First Operating SPS 111.5
*Shuttle passenger version assumed available.
It must be emphasized that cost data from this 1975 analysis was generated with ground-
rules and assumptions totally incompatible with those subsequently used for NASA-JSC
Earth Baseline SPS Economic Analysis. Modification of this 1975 data has been limited
to only the most obvious descrepancies. The only purpose for using this information is
to determine non-SPS material requirements sensitivity for a low construction scenario.
It is no.__[t
valid for any other purpose. One interesting omission is the required mass and
definition of construction materials used for the 10 GW SPS analyzed during "the 1975
Summer Study. Apparently, a high percentage of lunar material utilization was assumed,
which leads to the conclusion that aluminum structure is employed• Structure for the JSC
Earth Baseline is _Traphite composite.
3-9
To determine a preliminary material requirements threshold point, SPSnumber 2
aud on production costs must be developed. The adjusted summer study development
expenditures shown in Table 3-5 yield a system capableof producing 10 GW
satellite power systems at the rate of one per year. We have determined the cost of
additional satellites by imposing the following assumptions on summer study
analyses:
• Learning effects will be ignored.
¢ Only the labor related to SPS production and/or maintenance of the productive
system will be counted.
@ Low (ultimate) launch costs are applicable from the start.
Table 3-5 Summer study cost adjustments.
1975 Research, Development & Start-up Costs $IIi. 5 B
Escalate to 1977 Costs 12.3
Add missing development (from NASA baseline): 15.9
Additional basic research 4.7
Personnel OTV 1.5 V
Launch Facilities (KSC) 2.8
SPS hardware facilities 3.4
Additional earth rectenna costs 3.5
Adjusted Research & Development $139.7 B
These assumptions, implemented as indicated in Table 3-6, ensure that SPS costs,
at $11. 865 billion, are understated for the lunar resources utilization concept.
A comparison of NASA JSC earth baseline production costs with adjusted summer
study SPS production costs is shown in Table 3-7. This comparison indicates
that the satellite produced from lunar resources is und.erestimated relative to
the JSC baseline.
3-10
The material and labor costs for the satellites show the earth-based concept to be
$3 billion higher. It is likely that the lunar material satellite would be of equivalent
cost, with its savings realized in transportation cost alone,
Transportation for the lunar resources concept reflects the ultimate low cost when
lunar oxygen propellants and second generation launch vehicles are available.
The lowest conceivable threshold point can now be determined by combining cost data
from Tables 3-4 through 3-7.
Table 3-6 Adjusted Summer Shady production costs for one SPS per year.
Earth Purchased SPS Parts (4.61 - 1.01) $3,600 B
Transportation .660
2950 MY (@ L5) 1. 393
System Maintenance & Operation 1.028
1975 Costs 6.681
Escalate to 1977 costs .738

Add Rectenna 4.446
Adjusted Second Unit SPS Cost $11.865 B
Table 3-7 SPS unit cost comparison (1977 $B)
JSC Summer
Baseline Study (Mod)
Earth-produced satellite parts 7.141 3.997
In-space fabrication & assembly 1.216 1.340
Subtotal Materials & Labor 8. 357 5.337
Transportation 10. 089 2.082
S_tellite Subtotal 18.446 7.419
Ground System (Rectennas) 4. 446 4.446
TOTAL $22.892B 11.865B
3-11
Costs to develop and produce Satellite Power Systems from earth and lunar materials
are plotted in Figure 3-2, as a function of the number of satellites produced.
Learning effects have been ignored to ensure that the breakeven point is understated.
If learning were included, the plotted cumulative cost lines would show lower costs
as more satellites are produced. The JSC baseline, with higher unit cost, would
curve more sharply, and the crossover point would move to the right. If 80%
learning was attainable for both concepts the crossover would occur at about
8 units.
This comparison, shown in Figure 3-2, indicates that at least an equivalent of 5.8
10 GW SPS, or approximately 565,030 tons of material, is required to consider
lunar resource utilization. This means that the low scenario of Table 3-3 must be
increased by a favor of 9, or combined with material requirements for other satellites
such as SPS, to meet this preliminary nominal thres'l/old point criteria.
Perhaps world conditions and satellite service requirements will improve more
rapidly than expected and the low scenario developed in Table 3-3 will prove to be
conservative. It is difficult to envision, however, that satellite quantities shown
could more than double, which would still fall far short (22 percent) of the preliminary
nominal threshold point. Thus a mix of SPS and satellites from Table 3-3
must be used to attain even the very optimistic mlnimt/m material requirements.
When developing a low scenario which combines SPS and these smaller service
satellites, some selectivity must be used to eliminate possible inconsistancies.
For instance, with satellite power systems included in the low missions scenario,
the possible need for night illuminators (CS-6) and power relay satellites (CS-15)
is reduced. This is due to the fact that SPS will supply power for illuminating
cities via e_sting street lights, and can beam the power to locations where it's
most needed. It is also possible that fewer nuclear fuel locators (CO-7) will
be required since SPS's will be developed instead of new fission reactors to
3-12
250
2O0
150
COST
$ BILLIONS
_o 100
5O
Caution -- This comparison has been made with concepts which were developed using incompatible
gToundrules. Its only intended use is to determine non-SPS material requirements sensitivity for
a low construction scenario. It is no___.t
valid for any other purpose.
(From R&D)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
QUANTITY OF 10 GW SPS PRODUCED IN 30 YFARS
Fig_aro 3-2. Preliminary estimate of nominal threshold point.

supply growing energy needs. However, nuclear materials will still be needed for
existing reactors and other purposes, and the requirement for monitoring and safeguarding _
this material will not be reduced.
When the night illuminator and power relay satellite requirements are deleted from
Table 3-3, the low material requirements scenario total mass is reduced from 63,230T
to 29,135T.
3.4 SATELLITE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS (EARTH RESOURCES)
The baseline JSC satellite power system consists of the element material requirements
shown in Table 3-8. These have been accumulated in Table 3-9 to demonstrate the
percent requirement for each particular material per 10 GW satellite.
A similar material estimate for earth service satellites used in the low mission scenario
has not previously been accomplished. Enough data exists, however, to conduct a
very preliminary assessment of these material needs. This estimate, shown in
Table 3-10, employs power requirements and antenna area requirements from the
Aerospace Corporation report (See Table 3-1) to determine solar cell mass (glass
and silicon) and composite structure mass. The remaining mass identified as "other
materials" will include metals, sensors, avionics_iud propulsion equipment. This
mass has been allocated as shown in Table 3-11 with metals comprising an
estimated 18 percent of the total low scenario mass.
Comparison of the mass percentages for SPS in Table 3-9, with those for the low
scenario in Table 3-11, results in some interesting conclusions.
1) The SPS is a power intensive satellite system:
= 174.3 kW/T
Power ) = 17t000_000 kW
U'_ Mass SPS 97,550 T
= 3.5 kW/T
Power> = 102,4_kW
U-_ Mass Low 29,135 T
Scenario
V
3-14
Table 3-8. 10 GW satellite system materials requirements *
Element Material Mass (T)
Energy Collection System
Structure Gr-Ep 6,177

Aluminum 619
Solar Cells Gl_ss 36,0}7
Silicon 14,775
Copper 1,456
S. Steel 327
• Distribution Aluminum 2,778
Copper 116
S. Steel 67
Silver 28
Misc. Components Various 3,209
Power Transmission System
Structure Gr-Ep 894

Controls Aluminum 1, 850
Copper 1,761
So Steel 3,449
Mercury (1) 266
Instrumentatio n/Bus s Aluminum 1,077
Copper 1, 68"6
S. Steel i, 686
Antenna Subarrays Gr-Ep 5,462
Copper 5,755
S. Steel 2,218
Tungsten 1,132
Misc. Components Various 4,665
TOTAL 97,550
(1) Closed System Heat Pipe Application Only
NOTE: Undefined component mass 7,874 Tj or 8,_ of total mass of SPS
* Data S:_urce: A recommended preliminary baseline concept, SPS concept

evaluation program, NASA JSC January 25, 1978
kj
3-15
Table 3-9. SPS earth material requirements summary *
Mass (T) Percent
Glass (Fused Silica) 36,097 37
Silicon Solar Cells 14,775 15
Graphite Composite 12,533 13
Copper 10,774 11
Stainless Steel 7,747 8
Aluminum 6,324 7
Tungsten 1,132 1
Mercury 266
Silver 28
Various 7,874 8
TOTAL (PER SATELLITE) 97,550 100
* Compiled from data shown in Table 3-8.
V
Table 3-11. Low scenario earth material requirements summary
Mass (T) Percent
Glass (Fused Silica ) 438 > 1
Silicon Solar Cells 183 < 1
Graphite Composite 9,569 33
Copper 500 2
Stainless _eel 1,500 5
Aluminum 3,120 11
Various 13,825 47
TOTAL (SCENARIO) 29,135 I00
)
V
3-16
Table 3-10. Estimated earth material requirements for modified low scenario satellites other than SPS
-- ,= ,, , ill ...., , i
30 Total(l) I Total Area (m 2) Mass (T)

i i iiii i i
Satellite Year Power Solar (2) Silica (3) Silicon (4) Graphite (5) Other (6)
Designation Qty. (kW) Array Antenna(1) Glass Cells Total (7)
Composite Materials
i
PSP-I 2O 90 556 6,800 <1 <1 292 298

1)SP-2 lO 12,280 75,800 1,034,000 52 22 576 682 1,332
CO-7 80 24 148 12,000 <1 <1 7 100 109
CS-13 60 30 185 9,000 <1 <1 5 102 109
CC-I 20 20 123 200 <1 <1 <1 11 14
CO-9 30 90,000 555,600 33×106 382 157 8,976 17,758 27,273
b.a
TOTALS [102,444 632,400 34.06xi06 438 183 9,569 18,945 29,135

il
(1) Obtained from data in Table 3-1
(2) Based on SPS photovoltaic array specific power of 162 W/m 2
(3) Based on twice the SPS silica glass thickness, or 0.688 kg/m 2
(4) Based on twice the SPS silicon cell thickness, or 0. 282 kg/m 2
(5) Based on four times the SPS support structure weight for arrays (0. 236 kg/m 2) plus twice GDC's expandable
truss structural weight,for antennas (0.54 kg/m _) except for CO-9 which uses twice SPS moport structure
for arrays (0. 118 kg/m _) and the expandable truss structural weight for antennas (0.27 k_/m 2)
(6) Remainder: Total in column (7) minus combinedquantities (3), (4) & (5)
(7) Obtained from Table 3-3

Therefore, while SPS material requirements are dominated by the photovoltaic
array (approximately 65 percent) solar array material requirements are
insignificant for the low scenario satellites (approximately 4 percent)
2) The low scenario satellites are dominated by their antenna requirements:
(Anterma Area = 2p438_ 000 m 2

= 25 m2/T
Unit Mass )
SPS 97,550 T
Antenna A__rea 29,135 T = 1169 m2/T

34,0a2,030 m 2
Unit Mass Low
Scenario
Thus, key low scenario material requirements include _Taphite composite
antenna structure, 32 percent, and various electronics sensors and controls,
47 per cent. The corresponding combined SPS requirements contribute only
9 percent.
An 9verall comparison of two possible low scenarios at the preliminary nominal threshold
point is presented in Table 3-12. The scenario on the left consists entirely of solar
power satellites. The other low scenario consists of a combination of SPS's and
those satellites identified in Table 3-10. The total mass of both options is the same,
and equals the minimum material requirements threshold point equivalent to 5.8
SPS's as developed in Figure 3-2. The right han,:l column of Table 3-12 shows the
percent variation of material requirements for SPS scenarios with and without other
earth servicing satellites. The maximum variation identified is .+wo percent. For
intermediate and high material scenarios, the percent variations will become significantly
smaller. Based o,_ this analysis, it is evident that if SPS material requirements are
exclusively used over the entire mission scenario range, the maximum error for any
specific material requirement will be only two percent. This error is well within
our current ability to predict actual SPS :material requirements, and is therefore
insignificant.
3-18
Table 3-12. Comparison of low scenario material requirements
Quantity of 5.5 SPS Plus Low Scenario

ill m= ii i i
Quantity of 5.8 SPS

Mod. Low
Material No Other Satellites
Mass for Scenario Combined Total Percent
Requirements
Mass (T) Percent 5.5 SPS (T) Mass (T) Mass (T) Percent Variation
tl
Glass 209,315 37.0 198,534 438 198,972 35.2 -1.8
Silicon Ceils 85,675 15.2 81,263 183 81,446 14.4 -0.8
Graphite Comp. 72,675 12.8 68,931 9,569 78,500 13.9 +i. I
Copper 62,475 11.0 59,257 500 59,757 10.6 -0.4

b-a
¢D
Stainless S_eel 44,922 7.9 42,608 1,500 44,108 7.8 -0. i
Aluminum 36,671 6.5 34,782 3,120 37,902 6.7 +0.2
Tungsten 6,564 1.2 6,226 m_ 6,226 1.1 -0.1
Mercury 1,542 0.3 1,463 1,463 0.3 --M
Silver 162 154 154 mm
Various 45,659 8.1 43,307 13,825 57,132 10.1 +2.0

I
TOTALS i 565,660 100 536,525 29,135 ! 565,660 100 i .............
To summarize, we recommend that SPS material requirements as a function of SPS
construction rate be used exclusively throughout the mission scenario range,
because:
1) In the worst case (lowest conceivable threshold point), material require-
ments vary by a maximum of two percent due to inclusion of an optimistic
scenario of SPS compatible earth service satellites.
2) The actual threshold point developed by subsequent study tasks is expected
to be somewhat greater than the optimistic 5.8 SPS's obtained by using
Space Settlements Summer Study data. This higher threshold will further
reduce the material requirements variance caused by other non-solar power
satellites.
3) If other than SPS material requirements are included, their replacement by
lunar resources is unlikely since almost 80 percent of their needs must
be satisfied by earth materials and products such as _raphite composite
and complicated electronics equipment.
4) Since the low scenario without SPS is very optimistic, we are convinced
that SPS (or a yet-to-be identified equivalently massive substitute) will have
to be included in the intermediate scenarios. For example, with JSC's Ref. 6
SPS scenario B (112 satellites) used for the high scenario, intermediate
scenarios might include quantities of 75 (67 percent) and 37 (33 percent)
satellite power systems. Addition of those satellites in Table 3-10 (or
even ten times as many) to these intermediate/high scenarios will have an
insignificant effect on overall material percentage requirements.
5) Since multiple SPS's will dominate both the high and intermediate scenarios
it would be very useful in determining the cost effectiveness point to have
constant SPS material percentages extend to the lower scenario. We
therefore recommend that SPS material percentages apply throughout
the entire scenario range.
3-20
3.5 SA TELLITE MATERIAL RE QUIREMENTS (LUNAR RESOL'RCES)
The replacement of satellitepower system components manufactured from
earth resources, with those made primarily from lunar resources, was
evaluated via a multi-step procedure:
I) The specific earth material used for each SPS component or application,
and the performance requirements which resulted in the selection of this
material must be established.
2) Suitable SPS component substitutes which contain a reasonably high
percentage of lunar materials and will satisfy most (or all)of the baseline
component's performance requirements must be postulated. The equivalent
quantify of this substitute lunar material needed to meet earth baseline per-
formance requirements must be determined.
3) Those components for which this substitution can be reasonably made
must be selected. This material replacement can occur in successively
more difficultsteps as shown in Figure 3-3. NASA-JSC participation in
determining the deEree of acceptable substitutiondifficultyis included in
this selection process.
Category 1 2 3 4 5
Direct Simple Difficult Substitution Substitution

replacement
of earth
"-t- substitution + substitution
+ requires "4- requires
for earth for earth minor SPS major SPS
materials materials materials redesign redesign
Figure 3-3. Steps for lunar mate rial substitution.
4) Determine the corresponding lunar and earth material requirements for
a Satellite Power System constructed primarily with lunar resources.
3.5.1 Characterization of SPS Earth Material Requirements
Development of lunar resource requirements for the satellite power system
requires greater understanding of the earth baseline material performance
characteristics than exhibited by Table 3-8.
3-21
To obtain an improved understanding of specific SPS material applications,
the matrix shown in Table 3-13 was generated using satellite mass summary
data and material requirements summary data obtained from "A recommended
preliminary baseline concept, SPS concept evaluation program", NASA JSC
January 25, 1978, plus information from volumes III, IV and VI of the Boeing
SPS System Definition Study, Part II (References 6, 7, and 8). Appendix A of Volume III
includes the data sheets with specific source information from which these material
estimates were generated.
Some discretion was employed in completing the matrix in Table 3-13 to
provide reasonable agreement with the NASA-JSC documented totals and the
26.7 percent material margin. As indicated by the footnotes, the material
requirements for CRES and aluminum required margins significantly different
than the identified composite margin of 26.7 percent. Based on this compilation,
it appears that aluminum requirements have been slightly underestimated.
CRES requirements appear to be overestimated, but CRES heat pipe material V

needs may make this allocation acceptable. Masses of discrete components
are ranked in Table 3-13 by use of alphabetic superscripts.
These components plus smaller amounts of similar components and material
margins are listed in Table 3-14. Also shown is the specific application for which
these materials are used, and the performance requirements responsible for
their selection. As indicated in Table 3-14, fifteen discrete material products,
each contributing at least 1.2 percent of total SPS mass, total 90.0 percent
of the earth baseline SPS material requirements.
3.5.2 Lunar Resource Material Substitution
Each earth material application in Table 3-14 must be investigated to determine
reasonable alternative methods of providing the same function with lunar derived
materials. This investigation included development of equivalent material
3-22
C1
Table 3-13. SPS earth material requirements mass breakdown.
Fused Silicon
Silica Solar Graphite (Ref Table X- ! )
Other
SPS Components
Glass Cells Comp Copper CRES Alum Metals Various Total
_)IAR ARRAY
(d)
Primary Structure 4. 900 485 5.385
Rotary Joint (Mechanical) (o) 60 4 3 67
Flight Control System
Thl_lsters 47
Mechanical Systems 32
Conductors (el 8 179
Power Processors 88
Avionics (Instr. Comm. Computers) 4
Energy Conversion System
(b)
Solar Cells 12,671
(a)(c)
Substrate and Covers 28.313
(n)
in_rconnects 1,150 43.750
Joint/Support Tapes
Catenary 258
(a_(c)
Tolerance & Other 181 258 1.919
Power Distribution
Power Busses (hi, 030
(el
I Cell String Feeders 39
Disconnects and Switchgear 156
Energy Storage 20 2,398
Rotary Joint (Electrical) 1 (Ag) 23 15
Support Structure (o) 114
MICROWAVE POWER TIIANS_JISSION SYSTEM

Antenna Structure
Primary Structure (o) 105
Secondary Slructure (o) 395 500
Antenna Control System 11 II

M P'I_ Power Distribution
Power Busses th) 760
Switchgcar and DiscoNnects
274
DC-DC Converters (e) 868 t_e) 844 0l 50 5,866
720
"fine rmal Control 0)1,188 284
Energy Storage 599
Support Structure (o) 279 J
J
Sul_trrays ] ....
Waveguides (1")4,149 (il 165

(el0) (k) tin)
Klystrons 4,542 ], 747 (W) 893 2,134
'lltcrmai Control (1tl,215 (g) 1,926 (I) 767 01g) 266 2 8,846
Control Circuits and Cables (el
698 344
Margin (,,_ 26.7%) 7,603 3,2(_ 2,530 2,254 . (I 12,635 (2) 875 (3) 244 (412,303 20,548
TOTAL (Ref Table 3--9) 36,097 14,775 12,533 10,774 1,426 7,874. 97,550
(1) 52.5°_,, (2) 16.1°_,, (3) 20.6°_,, (4) 19.8%

Table 3-14. SPS earth material mass ranking and application.
PERCENT
MASS OF TOTAL
RA_I( (T SPS MASS MATERIAL APPUCATION PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS
(a) 21,658 22. 2 Borosilicate Glass Photovolts/c Cell Structural Support, UV Stability,
Covers Ernittance, Radiation Protection
(b) 14,775 15.1 Silicon Solar Cells Energy Conversion Efficiency,

Radiation & Thermal Degradation
(c) 14,439 14.8 Fused Silica Glass Photovoltatc Cell Structural Support, Thermal Control
Substrate
(d) 6,208 6.4 Graphite Composite Primary Structure Structural Stiffness,Buckling Strength,
for Solar Array Thermal Stability
(e) 5,980 6.1 Copper Wire Klystron & DC-DC Electrical Conductivity, Resistance,
Converter Coils, Field Strength
Power Cables
(t_ 5,257 5.4 Graphite Composite MPTS Waveguides Microwave Transmission, Dimensional
and Thermal Stability,
(g) 3,892" 4.0 CRES Tubing Heat Pipe for Contain Mercury Transport Fluid,
Klystron Radiators High Temperature
(h) 3,535 3.6 Ahuninum Sheet Power Transmission Electrical Conductivity

Busses, Array &
MPTS
(1) 2,749 2.8 Aluminum Sheet kqystron & DC-DC Thermal Conductivity, Surface
Cony. Radiators Emissivity
(J) 1,820 1.9 Copper _Iach Part) Klystron Solenoid Electrical Conductivity, Non-
Cavity Magnetic, Mercury Compatibility
(k) 1,758 1.8 Iron Klystron Solenoid Magnetic Properties

& Transformer for
DC-DC Converter
(1) 1,539 1.6 Copper Sheet Klystron Collector Thermal Conductivity, Surface
Radiators Emissivity, High Temperature
(m) 1,524 1.6 CRES (Mach Part) Klystron Housing Non-Magnetic, High Temperature
m) 1,456 1.5 Vacuum Deposited Solar Cell InteP- Electrical Conductivity, High Tempera-
Copper Connects ture for Array Annealing
(o) 1,210 1.2 Graphite Composite MPTS Antenna & Structural Stiffness,Thermal Stability,
Other Structure Electrical Insulator
87,800 T 90. 0_ of Total 97,550 T Earth Baseline SPS
* [(2,636 - 266)Fr°m X. 2 + (1522)From X. 4] 1.00 Margin
3-24
requirements. The following procedure was employed to obtain this
information:
1) Determine what percentage (by weight) of the earth baseline material
requirements can be directly satisfied with lunar resources.
2) Postulate substitut_ materials which will allow a higher percentage of
lunar resource utilization and/or improved in-space production capability.
Determine how much more of these substitute materials are required to
meet the various performance requirements of the earth baseline materials,

such as:
• Structural stiffness (graphite composite)
• Electrical conductivity {power busses, klystrons)
• Radiation protection {glass covers)
• Energy conversion {solar cells)

r
• Heat dissipation {radiators)
• Dimensional stability (MPTS waveguides)
The substitute lunar derived material mass requirements are defined
by the ratio of important performance parameters:
Lunar Material Parameters

Performance ]
Performance
Lunar material ]
[ Performance
Earth Material Parameters ] Factor
3) Determine what percentage (by weight) of these substitute lunar materials
must still be obtained from earth. These earth materials include special
alloying agents, adhesives, and other substances which cannot be derived
from lunar resources.
Details of results obtained by this procedure for each of the fifteen material
utilization categories is contained in Appendix A of Volume III. The material
substitutions shown in Table 3-1S were recommended to achieve maximum
utilization of elements available in lunar soil. Aluminum was substituted
3-25
for copper and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) when material compatibility
and operating temperature requirements were acceptable. Foamed glass was V
selected as a substitute for graphite composite structure and waveguide appli-
cations. Postulation of a low density lunar ceramic (foamed glass) as suitable
SPS structure was based on the theoretical attributes of this material, especially
its low coefficient of thermal expansion. Extensive experimentation and tech-
nology development may be required to obtain such a material. Many SPS
components, especially solar cells, can be manufactured using lunar derived
glass and silicon for direct replacement of earth materials.
Table 3-15. Recommended lunar material substitutions.
Percent
Category
Direct • Aluminum for power busses & radiators

replacement • Silicon for solar cells
o| earth • Fused silica glass for solar cell substrate 38.1
materials • Iron for Klystron poles & transformer core
V
Simple • Fused silica for borosillcate glass solar cell covers "1
"substitution
for earth •• Aluminum for
Aluminum for copper
copper wtre&
radiatorsinterconnects I 31.4
materials
Dilficult
• Alloy steel for CRES heat pipes "}
substitution
Ior earth • Copper coated aluminum for copper Klyslron cavity _ 7.5
materials • Aluminum fer CRES Klystron cavity
Substitution
requires • Foamed glass for graphite composite structure "_ 13.0
minor SPS • Foamed glass for graphite composite waveguides J
redesign
3-26
The recommended lunar material substitutfons have been compiled in Table 3-16 for
each of the fifteen SPS applications. Substitute material replacement mass factors
vary from 0. 338 for replacing the CRES klystron housing with aluminum, to 2.0 for
replacing graphite composite structure with foamed glass. The total mass derived
from lunar material is 88,190 T which requires an additional 440 T of earth supplied
alloying materials. This total material quantity (88,630 T) provides the same functions
as the 87,800 T of earth baseline SPS materials. The special earth baseline materials
(Ag, W, Hg) and electronic components (various) must still be supplied from earth for
the SPS constructed primarily with lunar m sources. This earth supplied material has
a mass of 97,550 - 87,800 = 9,750 T for each SPS, resulting in a total SPS mass of
98,380 T. Lunar materials employed for SPS construction are produced from only
four elements; silicon, oxygen, aluminum and iron.
3.6.3 EVALUATION OF SUBSTITUTE LUNAR MATERIALS. Fifteen material
r
Categories have been identified which constitute 90 percent of the earth baseline SPS
mass. From the results of our analyses in 3.5.2, it appears that suitable replacement
or substitute lunar materials may be available to satisfy the requirements of virtually
all these applications. However, the uncertainty or difficulty of effecting some of these
substitutions may make complete replacement with lunar materials unwise. This
section evaluates the propriety of accepting all of these proposed substitutions.
Each of the fifteen categories (a through o) have been assessed for their applicability
to seven qualitative evaluation criteria in Table 3-17. Ranking has been accomplished
on a scale of 1 to 5 for each of these criteria. A low numerical score indicates simple
adaptability and high numerical score indicates difficult adaptability and/or a high
de_ee of uncertainty.
These numerical adaptability rankings can also be expressed in terms of direct
replacement, simple substitution, difficult substitution, and require satellite redesign,

_J
as described in the introduction to Section 3.5 on pages 3-21. Table 3-17 also
3-27
•1"able _-xtL compzlation O[ _SP/S
l.unnr Replacement Materials { T ) For sps Earth T
substitute lunar materials. T Constit- o
O uent T
_1 I/Z "0 T Mat'l. A
Earth Baseline Satellite Power System A Mass L
Rank Material L (T) (T)
Mass {T) Ms88 (IX,) Application ,,
(a) 21,658 22.2 Boroslllcate Glass Photovol LMo Cell 21,658 21,658 21,658
Covers
(b) 14, 775 15.1 Silicon Solar Cells 14,775 14,775 1 14,775
(c) 14,439 14.8 Fused Silica Glass Photovoltaic Cell 14,439 14,439 0 14,439
Substrate
(d) 6,208 6.4 Graphite Coznposlte Primary Structure 12,404 12,416 0 12,416
(02) 12
for Solar Array
(e) 5,980 6.1 C(q)per Wire Kly_ron & DC-DC 2,865 2,865 0 2,865
Converter Coils,
Power Cables
(0 5,257 5.4 Graphite Composite M PTS Waveguldes 5,252 _o2) s 5,257 0 5,257
(g) 3,892 4.0 CRES Tubing lieat Pipe for 3,542 3,542 350 3,892
Klyatron Radiators
(h) 3,535 3.6 Aluminum Sheet Power Trnnsmissio_ 3,535 3,535 0 3,535
I
Busses, Ar_w &
c_ M PTS
(i) 2,749 2.8 Aluminum Sheet Klystron & DC-DC 2,749 2,749 0 2,749
Cony. Radiators
(J) 1,820 1.9 Col_)er {Mach Klystron Solenoid 785 785 90 875
Part) Cavity
(k) 1,758 1.8 Iron Klystron Solenoid 1,758 1,758 0 1,758

& Transformer for
I)C-DC Converter
(I) 1,5.39 1.6 Copper Sheet Klystron Collector 779 779 0 779
Radiators
!
(m) 1,524 1.6 CITES (Mach Part) Klystron llousing 515 515 O 515
(n) 1,456 1.5 Vacuum Deposited Solar Cell Inter- 697 697 0 697
Coplmr Connects
(o) 1,210 1.2 Graphite Composite M PTS Anteurm & 2,418 (02)2 2,420 0 2,420
Other Structure
87,800 90.0 TOTA 1, MASS ('T ) 56,171 14,775 11,925 5,300 19 88,190 440 88r630
Pi_RCENTAGE OF EARTI! BASELINE MASS .57.6 15.2 12.2 5.4 - 90.4 0.5 90.9
C
Table 3-17. Assessment of lunar material substitutes,
Qualitative Evaluation Criteria Catagories

lCAN_IN(A
1 2 3 4 5
1 - No Problems Introduced
2 - Slight Problems
3 - Moderato Problems
4 - Severe Problems
5 - Very Severe Problems
0
",'_
Recommended
SIrS Earth Baseline Lunar Substitute m C
Rank Application Material Material Mm
a Photcvoltaic Cell Covers Borosllicate Glass Fused Silica Glass 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 X

b Solar Cells Silicon Silicon 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 X
C Photovoltato Cell Substrate Fused Silica Glass Fused Silica Glass 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 X
d Primary Solar Array
! Graphite Composite Foamed Silica Glass 4 4 3 2 1 5 4 3.3 X
Structure
e Solenoid/Coil Wtndillga Etc. Copper Wire Aluminum Wire 1 1 1 2 3 2 2 1.7 X

f MPTS Waveguides Graphite Composite Foamed Silica Glass 4 4 4 2 2 5 4 3.6 X
g Klystron Heat Pipes CITES Tubing CITES in Kiystron, I_w 3 2 2 ' 3 2 2 2 2.3 X
Alloy Steels Elsewhere
h Power Transmission Busses Almninum Sheet Aluminum Sheet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 X
i Klystroo/DC-DC Cony. Aluminum Sheet Aluminum Sheet 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.0 X
Radiators
J Klystron Solenoid Cavity Copper Mach. Part Copper Coated Aluminum 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3.1 X
Aluminum Cast &Mach.
k Klystron Polos, DC-DC iron Much. Part Iron Much. P.'art 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 _.1 X
Transformer
! Klystron Collector Radiators Copper Sheet Aluminum Sheet 1 1 1 3 3 2 3 2.0 X

III Klyst ron Housing CRES Mach. P:=rt Aluminum Cast & Mneh. 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2.6 X
I1 Solar Cell Interconnects Copper Vac. Deposit_ Aluminum Vac. Deposited 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1.1 X
O M I_1"S Antenna Structure Graphite Composite Foamed Silica Glass 4 4 4 3 2 5 4 3.7 X
organizes the data into this format.
V
The five direct replacement applications (b, c, h, i, and k) obtain all their material
requirements from lunar resources. This lunar derived silicon, silica glass (SiO2),
aluminum, and iron constitutes 38.2 percent of the earth baseline.
The second category, "simple substitution for earth materials," includes four
applications (a, e, 1 and n) which use 100 percent lunar resources which are sub-
stituted for functions supplied in the earth baseline SPS by materials not available
on the moon. These substituted lunar materials, silica glass and aluminum, plus the
materials in category I, comprise 64.8 percent of the earth baseline SPS mass.
The third category includes those substitutions which are more difficult to accomplish
due to a combination of performance requirements not ideally suited for lunar materials.
When the lunar iron and aluminum in g, J and m is included, the combined category 1
through 3 materials are equivalent to 69.8 percent of the earth baseline SPS mass. V
Some earth alloys (Cr, Ni, Cu) must be used in conjunction with these lunar metals
to meet performance requirements.
The fourth category includes the graphite compodite applications, for which foamed
silica glass has been substituted. This substitution may not actually be very difficult,
but little experience with this proposed material and its application is available, which
results in a high degree of uncertainty. By combining all four categories, 90.4 percent
of the earth baseline SPS material requirements are satisfied with lunar materials. It
is important to note, however, that the total SPS mass increases slightly when lunar glass
structure is substituted for earth graphite compos[te, so the lunar derived materials
only constitute 89.6 percent of the revised total SPS mass.
The final category "substitution requires major SPS redesign", did not correspond
to any of the fifteen material applications investigated.
3-30
Although higher category designations indicate increased difficulty in implementing
lunar material substitutions, all of these substitutions should be feasible if reason-
able technologydevelopments are pursued. We have therefore recommended that all
fifteen candidate SPSapplications (a through o) be implemented with lunar resource
substitutions,
3.8.4 LUNAR RESOURCE SPS MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS. Table 3-18 summarizes
the lunar and earth material requirements fpr each lunar resource l0 GW SPS as a
function of the category selection level.
It is interesting to note that total SPS mass increases due to the substitution of foamed
silica glass for graphite composite, but is reduced by aluminum substitution for
copper and CRES.
Although the maximum lunar resource utilization is recommended, the LRU material
percentages for lesser utilizations are included in Table 3-18. The total lunar
resource utilization drops from 89.6 percent _ 68.1 percent as materials from
categories 3 and 4 (see Table 3-17) are deleted.
The satellite power system material rate requirements are determined by multiplying
the SPS production rate per year by the mass values contained in Table 3-18. In
summary, 90.4 percent of the original baseline earth requirements are satisfied with
lunar derived materials, and 10.8 percent must still come from earth, resulting in a
lunar resource SPS 1.009 times more massive than the earth baseline, with a 89.6/
10.4 lunar/earth material ratio.
The material requirements for maximum lunar resources utilizationshown in Table
3-18 were used as input data to develop steady state material logistics scenarios in
Task 8.3.
UJ
3-31
Table 3-18. Lunar Resource SPS Material Requirements
Max Lunar Utilization Delete Catagory 4 Delete Cat. 3 & 4

All Cat agorics (Composite Replacement ) (Composite & Klystron)
Percent Percent Percent
Mass ( T ) of Total Mass ( T ) of Total of Total
.....Mass'( T )
41,033 41.7 31,649 34.8
Lunar [ Silic°n 31,649 34. 1
Material )Oxygen 29,932 30.4 19,223 21.1 19,223 20.7
11,925 • 12.1 11,925 13.1 10,625
Requirements tAluminu m 11.4
/Iron 5,300 5.4 5,300 5.8 1,758 1.9
tO
Total Lunar Material 88,190 89.6 68,097 74.9 63,255 68.1
Metals 2,316 2.4 2,316 2.5 9,112 9.8

EalCh |
..... | Graphite 0 0 12,675 13.9
lwarerlai (_. .. 12,675 13.6
• . l_omposl_e
l_eq ulrem ents
_Various 7,874 8.0 7,874 8.7 7,874 8.5
Total Earth Material 10,190 10.4 22,865 25.1 29,661 31.9
Total SPS Mass ( T ) 98,380 90,962 n 92,916
Percent of Earth
Baseline SPS Mass 100.9 93.2 95.2
Subsequent work performed as part of Task 5.3 resulted in updated SPS material
requirements. The results of this work are presented in Section 4.4.7 of this final
report volume. The updated SPS material requirements include estimates of the non-
recoverable losses of both lunar and earth supplied materials occurring in the various
stages of converting metallic and nonmetallic elements into stock materials, parts,
components and subassemblies. This updated material requirements data resulted in
an increase of 19.8 percent in lunar material requirements, and an increase of 22.6
percent in earth material requirements. Although unrecoverable materials were
responsible for some of this increase, revised foamed glass requirements and other
material quantity changes in the completed LRU solar power satellite were major
contributors. The updated SPS mass for construction with lunar materials is 112,220 T,
with 101,920 T manufactured from lunar material and 10,300 T obtained from earth.
This represents an increase of 15 percent in completed satellite mass from the 97,550 T
reference earth baseline.
3-33
REFER,ENCES
,
Bekey, I., Mayer, H. L., and Wolfe, M. G., "Advanced Space System Con-
cepts and Their Orbital Support Needs (1980-2000)," April 1976, Report No.
ATR-76 (7365}-1, Contract NASW 2727, The Aerospace Corporation.
2. Johnson, R. D., et al, "Space Settlements, ADesign Study," NASA SP-413,

NASA Scientific Technical Information Office, Washin_on, D.C., 1977.
3. Hopkins, M. M., "A Preliminary Cost Benefit Analysis of Space Colonization,"

Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 30, No. 8, August 1977.
B
Anom. : "Satellite Power SYstem (SPS) Concept Evaluation Program, A Recom-
mended Preliminary Baseline Concept," January 25, 1978 Briefing Brochure,
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.
,
Anom. : "Solar Power Satellite Concept Evaluation" July 1977 Activities Report
No. JSC-12973, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.
6_
Anom. : "Solar Power Satellite System Definition Study," Part II, Volume IH,
SPS Satellite Systems, Report No. D180-22876-3, Boeing Aerospace Company,
V
Seattle, Washtn_on, December 1977.
.
Anom. : "Solar Power Satellite System Definition Study," Part II, Volume IV,
Microwave Power Transmission Systems, Report No. D180-22876-4, Boeing
Aerospace Company, Seattle, Washington, December 1977.
8_
Anom. : "Solar Power Satellite System Definition Study," Part II, Volume VI,
Evaluation Data Book, Report No. D180-22876-6, Boeing Aerospace Company,
Seattle, Washington, December 1977.
3-34
LUNAR UTILIZATION SYSTEMS CONCEPTS DEFINITION (TASK 5.3)
TASK -- Develop and define system concepts for the utilization of lunar resources for
manufacturing structures in space. These system concepts shall include the location
of lunar materials processing and manufacturing, the support requirements of infra-
structure (such as lunar and space bases) and the material and crew transportation
systems required. Transportation systems considered for transferring material
from the lunar surface shall include electromagnetic "mass drivers" with associated
"mass catchers," reaction engine systems using lunar material for propellants,
and rocket systems utilizing lunar surface derived oxygen with earth-supplied
hydrogen fuel. For each lunar utilization concept, characterize the material that
is transferred between the mining location on the moon and the manufacturing location,
which may be either on the lunar surface or at a suitable orbital location in space.
This task also encompasses the preparation of preliminary cost estimates for develop-
ment, acquisition, and operation of equipment required to implement lunar resource
utilization concepts. These cost estimates are reported in Section 5 in conjunction
with other economic analysis related study tasks.
APPROACH -- This task comprises the major activity of the LRU study. It encom-
passes systems definition, systems development, systems analyses, and systems
comparison of alternative lunar resource utilization concepts. Its importance to
comparative assessment of LRU concepts with an Earth Baseline is vital since the
cost effectiveness threshold may be extremely sensitive to LRU systems techniques.
• Innovative systems concepts were evaluated in determining this threshold sensitivity
with the goal of developing a reasonable low threshold point. The approach to LRU
systems concept definition includes concept generation, definition of all major
concept system elements, and their integration into total systems. Each
4-1
representative LRU system includes processing/manufacturing elements, transporta-
t-ionelements, and infrastructure support elements. Definition includes preliminary
conceptualdesign, performance characteristics, and element mass. Considerations
include the location of lunar materials processing andmanufacturing facilities.
The elements comprising these LRU systems conceptsmust be developed, emplaced,

and started up in an integrated manner to provide a smooth flow of the materials re-
quired for satellite construction. Elements will be inte_rated into total systems
concepts to aid preliminary cost estimates for system development, acquisition,
start-up, production andmaintenance operations.
Definition of alternative lunar resources utilization system concepts was accomplished
for comparison with the reference Earth Baseline SPS construction scenario. Their
definition and assessment was conducted in five steps:
• Definition of representative techniques for utilizing lunar resources to construct
solar power satellites. Three generalized options were postulated which V
represent a broad spectrum of alternatives comprising space based, lunar
based, and combination lunar/space based manufacturing scenarios.
• Iteration of these generalized options via steady state earth material requirements
to define an explicit competitive LRU concept representative of each. This was
followed by development of detailed steady state material logistics scenarios
for each concept. The logistics scenarios provided sizing data for the major
system elements needed to process and transport SPS construction materials,
propellants, and personnel.
Definition of major system elements. The processing and manufacturing,
transportation,and infrastructure support elements of each LRU concept were
defined. Material processing covers those activities from mining of raw
materials through final assembly of usable end items. Transportation is a major
element since the material processing activities occur at various locations in
the earth-space-moon environment. Both personnel and material must be
4-2
h:ansported between activity sites. Infrastructure support elements encompass
JL
all other facilities necessary to accomplish the material processing and trans-
portation activities, such as habitats, propellant depots, and power plants.
Description of the lunar material flow and composition from surface mining
through its combination with earth components to construct a solar power
satellite.
Generation of start-up scenarios for delivering all space facilities, vehicles,
initial supplies, initial propellants, and personnel to proper locations and placing
them on operational status to support steady state production.
4.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE LRU IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
Lunar resource utilization (LRU) is an approach tn which lunar materials are
used for the construction of large space structures in high earth orbit. A major
objective of this study is the comparison of LRU system concepts with a conventional
baseline concept for satellite construction using earth resources. By comparing
the lunar resource utilization concepts with the earth baseline, similar and
unique system element requirements become readily apparent. To properly meet
this objective it is necessary to understand and define total LRU system concepts.
A LRU system concept must contain all the elements required to conduct the
activities involved in a space construction program. The activity categories are
material processing, transportation, and support. Material processing covers
those activities from mining of raw materials through final assembly of usable
end items. Transportation is a major element since the material processing
activities occur at various locations in the earth-space-moon environment.
Both personnel and material must be transported betnveen activity sites. Support
encompasses all other activities necessary to accomplish the material processing
and transportation activities.
Various facilities, equipment and resources are required to accomplish these
necessary activities. For material processing, only those items which are used
I
i
off the earth's surface will be considered in the LRU system. Costs of any earth-
V based material processing activities will be included and treated in the normal
manner used for earth-based concepts. The transportation activity will require
4-3
conventional rockets and other devices such as the mass driver/mass catcher.
%J
Transportation introduces a need for propellant, which can be a significant and costly
resource requirement. The fact that personnel will be located at most space
and lunar activity locations generates a requirement for habitats. Other supporting
elements include such things as power systems and propellant depots. These
system elements are interrelated, and in defining a particular LRU concept they
must be properly sized to ensure a smooth flow of activity.
There are many possible LRU system concept options. These can generally be
categorized by where specific activities take place and the degree of lunar material
utilization. Three "generalized" LRU systems options have been defined as
representative space based, lunar based, and combination space/lunar based
operating scenarios. Each of these scenarios will be iterated via the earth
material requirements analysis procedure to test various options within each
systems concept, and develop one or more "best" concept(s) for each operating
scenario.
Table 4-1 compares the earth-based approach (Option A) with these three gener- V
alized LRU system concept options:
Table 4-1..Summary of material processing locations for the Earth Baseline and
three generalized space manufacturing options.
Locaziol_ Where F LlllCtlun 15 Pc-'forlTl¢'d
Benvfl- Component Initial Final
End Product Mining; ciatic_ Smelting Refi'ling Forming Processing Manuiacture .ksscmblv Assembly
OPTION _ Prupcllanu l-'.axt h Ea;th - Earth - Earth

Earth Ba_,ed Launch System Earth _ll Earth
Satellite Mat] Earth I_ Earth LEO GEO
OPTION B Propellants O_ Lunar SMI" _.MF -- SMF - -.
Space Based l.aunch System E._tth 4 II E_ch

Satellite Mat'l l.unar SMF IL SMF
OPTION C Propellants Oo Lunar 0 2 Lunar -- 0 2 Lunar - 0 2 Lunar - -

Lunar Based I._unch System Earth 41 Earth
¢Ltlo from Earth) Satellite Mat'l Lunar _- Lunar GEO GEO
OPTION D Propellants 1.altar Lunar - Lunar -- Lunar
Lunar .Rased Launch Sy.tem Lunar 41 Lunar
tall Lunar Prop} Satellite Mat'l l.uaar 4 Lunar Lunar, Lunar; Lunar GF.O GEO
f;EO (;EO (,EO
4-4
i
OPTION A. i'AltTH BASELINE '(IIAf, ISPDIITATIbN DEOUIIIEMENTS OPTION O SPACE BASEl) TDAN,LIPbIliATION DEQTS
\
_ _ -- % DOWN -_ _ -. MASS bRIVEH

/ \ " , i. PEIISQNNEL I_
'_ IUNAbMATL I ..... t _"'ll_ LI_,,,L.-.k_-"

/ I \
,.\_11 - i(._OIISiiUIlllEtlltlulll:""--_,i f _?I;_.'_"_ iLb \
,Eb
/ /
/_-_ 'El _ MDll-l/t"
O/H EL/El
GEO
IIPIIIIN C, LUNAll BASED 1 IIANSPOIi[AFIbH bEbTS OPTION b. ! UNAlt /SPACE BASED TllANSP'ODT ATION OEQTS
,f.- %
¢..ll
\ \ •, %
. PEtlSONNEi ] tlV\I. \
\ \
\ _% b/ll(i/E) I /\ _ \-0!
b ,/
"' CO1V
_;(_ / / I "/SA.E "--/ BASE 'l PllbPELI ANT
. II,ASE q_ SDV I./i'_".pill_ . / / "--' [ANDPAYLbAO
!il F'-,. I/k I./bTV [ BIITII i'.AIIGO

"; _I-----
---i- O/ll |LIE)
J _/ . POTV
\ COTVI/ / .....
II/ll EL/El I& PEIISflNN[L J _7 ; ,_,,_\ ,/ / c!v__ ,INTbSmbCrUDE
, "li,,._l_/ ONE WAY TRIP
lib / LEO /
G[0 GEII
_VMIlOI S
_.,_ SI'AC[ S I ATIIIN/IIAIIITA [ COTV - IllAII-'_;i'OIIfATIOH VEilll:it TYPE 0 POOPEL I ANT OI[POT (UNMANNE D)
II/il |E-I IilUGIN OF POIIP[LLANIS (El EAItTll III LUNAll
r
J i AiIGE $:I'ACE SIFiUCTIIIII-
L. __PIIIlilELLANTS O,bXY(iEN It- IIYOItO,_[N A.AOGON
Figure 4-1. Four representative impLementation options for in-space manufacturing of large structures.
• Earth based (NASA-JSC SPS as defined in "A Recommended Preliminary
Baseline Concept Satellite Power System Concept Evaluation Program",
January 25, 1978.
• Space based (space manufacturing concept developed through three NASA-
Ames sponsored Summer Studies).
• Lunar based (a representative concept employing lunar manufacturing).
• Lunar/space based (a representative concept combining lunar and space
manufacturing).
Option A - Earth Based - The earth material utilization scenario, shown in
Fig_tve 4-1, is based on techniques developed and perfected during NASA's past
space accomplishments but implemented on a much larger scale. Two e arth-
to-LEO launch vehicles are employed: a fully reusable heavy lift launch vehicle
(HLLV) for cargo, and a shuttle derived personnel launch vehicle (PLV). The HLLV
is a two-stage fly-back vehicle with chemical propulsion and 424-ton payload
capability. Its payload consists of crew support stations, fabrication machinery,
assembly jigs, orbital transfer vehicles (OTV), and all construction supplies and
V
OTV propellants. The PLV replaces the Shuttle's tandem burn solid rocket boosters
with a series-burn O2/methane ballistic entry first stage, and has an Orbiter
modified to carry 75 passengers with their personal equipment.
Large structural sections are fabricated, inspected and checked out in LEO.
These completed satellite sections are transferred to their operational location
with unmanned cargo orbital transfer vehicles (COTV). The COTV uses a low-
thrust/high-impulse solar powered electric propulsion system and argon propellant.
Final assembly of these satellite sections into the complete large space structure
is performed at its operational locale, typically GEO. Manned tmnsfer from
LEO to GEO is provided by a high-thrust two-stage chemical personnel orbital
transfer vehicle (POTV).
Option B - Space Based - The lunar material utilization scenario developed for
space manufacturing and space settlements includes unique elements and innovative
techniques, and represents the proposals of Dr. Gerard O'Neill of Princeton
University. Material brought from earth includes transportation elements and V
4-6
r
_F
their propellants, lunar mining equipment, material processing and fabrication
t!if! equipment,
of large
economically
space
personnel
structure
in space.
plus their
components
habitats
which
and supplies,
cannot initially
and a small
be manufactured
percentage
Transfer of these payloads and personnel from earth to LEO is accomplished by
Shuttle-derived vehicle (SDV). A relatively small logistics station is constructed
of Shuttle external tanks in LEO. This facility is used as a base to assemble
transportation, processing, and habitation elements, and to integrate payloads
for departure to their operational locales. All personnel transfer to other orbits
is accomplished with a high thrust chemical POTV.
Cargo transfer is provided via a low-thrust solar-powered linear electromagnetic accel-
erator called a mass driver reaction engine (MDRE). This vehicle produces thrust
by exhausting any available waste mass (ground-up external tanks or lunar slag)
at very high velocity (8,000 m/s). The MDRE delivers lun'ar base material plus
the lunar transfer vehicle (LTV) and its propellants to low lunar orbit (LLO), the
mass catcher to L 2, and space manufacturing facility/habitation modules to their

s elected locale.
The lunar base is established by using the throttlable chemical LTV to land
m aterial and personnel. The lunar base consists of mining equipment, a fixed
mass driver catapult to launch lunar material to L2, living accommodations for
personnel, a power plant (solar or nuclear), and supplies. Lunar surface
operations include material collection, screening, bag_ng and launch by the
mass driver in a steady stream toward L 2. This material is retrieved by
the mass catcher at L 2, accumulated in large loads, and subsequently delivered to
the space manufacturing facility (SMF), by rotary pellet launcher and terminal
tug. At the SMF, this lunar soil is processed into useful structural materials,
fabricated into components, and final-assembled into the large space structure.
4-7
Although most of these manufacturing operations are highly automated, a signifi-
cant number of personnel are required for final assembly, machine operation,
maintenance and repair, plus support services. Completed earth service satellites
are transferred to their operating orbital location (typically GEO).by MDRE. This
spacemanufacturing concept is amenable to bootstrapping, a technique by which
a relatively modest initial lunar material throughput can provide products
which are then directly applied to increasing the original manufacturing facility's
production capability. Thus, sustained bootstrapping can simultaneously provide
increased production capability andproducts. Unfortunately, due to this study's
goal of determining a material requirements threshold point, we will be unable
to take advantageof bootstrapping. This occurs becausethe bootstrapping concept
results in a steadily increasing production capability andmanufacturing rate, so
comparison with constant rate manufacturing operations is extremely difficult.
Option C - Lunar Based - This option constitutes a significant departure from
the Option B concept in two primary areas: material processing occurs on the
lunar surface rather than in-space, and conventional rockets replace the mass
V
driver catapult, mass catcher, and MDRE. Option C has some transportation and
support elements that are very similar to those in Option B, such as earth launch
and LEO station requirements. OTVs differ from those in B only by the design of
cargo transfer stages and their propellant needs (type and quantity).
The COTV is an electric propulsion stage which can use either earth-supplied
argon propellant when outbound or lunar-supplied oxygen propellant when in-
bound. The lunar base is sigw.ificantly larger since it now provides material
processing and component manufacturing in addition to mining and beneficiation.
A chemical lunar/orbital transfer vehicle (L/OTV) is used to transport finished
construction supplies to the space manufacturing facility. The L/OTV propellants
are lunar derived oxygen and earth-supplied hydrogen. This vehicle normally
makes a round trip from lunar base to SMF to LLO and back to the lunar base.
It also supplies oxygen to a propellant depot in LLO for the COTV. Large
4-8
r
space structure fabrication and final assembly are accomplished at the SMF
which may be coincident to its product's use location.
Option D - Lunar/Space Based - The approach taken by the lunar/space-based
option reduces earth propellant requirements. This is accomplished by obtaining
both fuel and oxidizer from lunar materials, and is identical to Option C except
for the lunar base, SMF, and the transportation betnveen them. To reduce propell-
ant requirements the cargo transfer vehicle (CTV), which transports finished
components from lunar base to SMF, is confi_ured as an expendable vehicle. This
can only be competitive if the CTV tankage is manufactured at the lunar base from
lunar material (aluminum), and reprocessed at the SMF into large space structure
components. Therefore, some manufacturing operations are duplicated at these
two locations, but the majority of lunar material processing remains at the lunar
base. The lunar base must be expanded to include propellant tank fabrication and
CTV assembly, checkout, and launch. CTV propulsion (en_ne) and avionics n'o dules
are earth-manufactured subsystems which are recycled from SMF to lunar base
for reuse. The return of these subsystems is accomplished by chemical OTVs
and LTVs which also perform all personnel transfer.
These'three Lunar Resources Utilization options are presented only" as represent-
ative techniques encompassing a wide range of space manufacturing scenarios.
The earth material requirements analysis technique was employed to determine
effects of various options on each of these generalized LRU scenarios. Variable
input parameters included lunar material utilization percentage, alternative propel-
lants and propellant sources, different transportation element designs, and efficiencies
of material processing, manpower utilization and so forth. Results of this analysis, and
the LRU systems concepts developed by this iterative process are described in Section
4.2, which follows.
4-9
4.2 EARTH MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS (EMR) & LRU CONCEPTS DEVELOPMENT V
The earth material requirements are determined via development of material
logistics scenarios for each candidate LRU option. Material logistics scenarios
involve the integration of lunar material processing, infrastructure support
facilities,and transportation elements to provide systems delivery definitionof the
required construction material when, where, and at the rate needed. A steady-
state material logistics scenario assumes that allnecessary facilities,vehicles,
and personnel are in place and working. It defines the constant material flow
rates needed to sustain the system's non_Fluctuatingoutput. This scenario
is used to compare and better understand alternative LRU concepts.
Constructing satellite power systems (SPS) from lunar material is extremely
complex. A kilogram of aluminum structure produced at an SMF depends on a
many tiered pyramid of supporting activities for its creation. The aluminum ore
obtained from the moon must be processed using chemicals from earth, a small
percentage of which are lost in recovery. Alloying elements may be needed from
earth in addition to personnel, supplies and machinery replacement parts. Trans-
portation of earth supplies to the moon or SMF, and lunar material transfer to SMF,
both require propellants which must be obtained, and transported from, these
same sources.
These and other effects can all be traced back to determine total earth material
requirements per unit of SPS. Comparison of the total earth material requirements
(EMR) for alternative LRU concepts provides a direct top level evaluation method
useful in preliminary screening of concepts. For example, a viable LRU concept
would require a substantially lower EMR than the earth material construction
baseline to ever reach the total life-cycle cost crossover. By this technique,
some noncompetitive concept suboptions can probably be screened out on the basis
of EMR without proceeding throughsubsequent economic analyses.
4-10
Each generalized LRU systems concept has been analyzed to assess transportation
system options and determine sensitivities to various performance and operational
parameters. As this analysis was performed, it became obvious that some of our
initially defined system concepts described in Section 4.1 (shown in Figure 4-1),
were relatively inefficient from an EI_IR standpoint, and that alternative
techniques provided significantly improved system performance. These revised
concepts are defined at the be_nning of each subsequent subsection, followed by
summarized EMIR and lunar material requirenents (LMR) data for the revised
concept at the recommended 89.6 percent LRU level for SPS manufacture. This is
followed by results of sensitivity studies and evaluation of the options considered
within each systems concept.
Determination of earth a._d lu.uar material reqtttrements is highly dependent on
vehicle propellant requirements and transportation efficiency. Data sheets
defining the various vehicles used to support these EMIq analyses are contained in
Section 4.6. Likewise, definition of processing/manufacturing elements and

!
infrastructure elements are contained in Sections 4.4 and 4.5, respectively.
Previous scenario development accomplished during proposal preparation, and
employed as an example on page 2-18 (Comparison _Iethodology and Criteria,
Task 5.1),was updated and refined to reflect improved understanding of trans-
portation system and other concept elements. The computer program used for this
analysis has been revised to allow variation of input parameters in order to accomplish
sensitivity studies. Earth and lunar material requirements are plotted as a function of
the Lunar Resource Utilization percentage for SPS construction, to demonstrate
steady state EMIR and LMR sensitivity to LRU percentages other than 89.6 percent.
A common set of assumptions and performance criteria were used for developing
4-11
EM:Rand LM:R for the earth baseline and lunar resource utilization concepts.
These are itemized below:
1) Steady-state operations - start-up phase complete and all earth, lunar and
space facilities in place.
2) All hydrogen propellants are delivered from earth.
3) For LRU options, all other propellants used above LEO are obtainedfrom
the moon.
4) Processing of lunar soil results in 33%oxygen recovery. (10 kg soil yields
3.3 kg O2)
5) Chemicals expended (lost)in lunar processing equal 0.5% of soil processed.
6) Ecosystems are partially closed. Crew requirements including food and
water from earth are 0.8 ton/year/person.
7) Crew size requirements were obtained from the following formulas:
For all options except B:
GEO crew = 200 (SPS quantity/year)
For options C and D:
Lunar base crew _.200 + 1300 (SPS/yr)(lunar material fraction)
For option B:
Lunar base crew = 30 + 20 (SPS/yr)(lunar material fraction)
For option B:
SMF crew = 200 + 1300 (SPS/yr)(lunar material fraction)
For option B:
GEO crew = 36 (SPS/yr) for maintenance only
8) Crew transport requirements are based on return to earth after the following
duty tours:
For option A: 90 days at LEO or GEO
For options B, C, and D: 60 days at GEO
180 days at SMF
180 days at lunar base
9) Transportation vehicle performance parameters are listed in Table 4-2.
4-12
F
Table 4- 2. Definition of Vehicle Performance Assumptions.
STAGE
,_V EFFICIENCY
VEHICLE ROUTE (m/sec) (kg proplkg PL) ASSUMPTION
HLLV Earth - LEO 9,450 21.7 Round trip empty return

SDV Earth- LEO 9,450 17.2 Round trip
SS Earth - LEO 9,450 57.5 Round trip
COTV (02) LEO --- GEO 11,660 0.245 Round trip empty return
(Electric) LEO- LLO 16,640 0.3168 One way
LLO --. GEO 4,700 0.0799 Round trip empty return
LEO -- SMF 15,519 0.2912 One way
SMF - GEO 3,890 0.06 Round trip'empty return
MDi E(O2) LEO - GEO 5,820 1.23

Round trip empty return
(Electric) LEO - LLO 8,300 2.31 One way
LEO - SMF 7,760 2.05 One way
SMF - GEO 1,945 0.285 Round trip empty return
L]V (O21H2) Moon - LLO 1,860 0.6715 Round trip with 10% payload down
(LDR) Moon - LLO 1,860 1.835 Round trip with 10% payload down
PLTV (O21H2) LLO - Moon 1,860 1.52 Round trip with 100% payload up
POTV(O2/H 2) LEO - GEO 4,330 2.2 One way

LEO- LLO 3,96O 1.87 One way
LEO - SMF 4,130 2.1 One way
Mass catcher -L 2 230 NIA (Slag) Round trip empty return
TT (O2/H2) - SMF 100 0.0248 Round trip empty outbound
COTV L'rv LDR PLTV POTV TT

(02) (O21H2) (O21AI) (O21H2) (O2/H2) (O21H 2)
Mass fraction 0.35-0.67" 0.89 0.90 0 89 0.90 0_89
(WpJWslage)
Mixture ratio N/A 7:1 2.22:1 7:1 7:1 7:1
(O/F)
Specific impulse 68,600 4,508 2,500 4,508 4,508 4,508
(N-s/kg)
=_
*Dependent on transfer leg
4-13
10) Iola electric COTV and MDRE vehicles require LH2/LO 2 attitude control
propellants to maintain vehicle pointing during oculted periods. ACS
propellant requirements for LRU option COTV's and MI)RE's were assumed
to be 25% of that for Concept A COTV delivery of SPS segments, appropriately
adjusted to transfer leg AV requirements. These reduced COTV ACS
propellant requirements are justified by improved payload densities for LRU
options and/or reduced gravity gradient torques on many transportation routes.
11) For Concept B, lunar material packaging is required for mass driver catapult
launch. It was assumed that these packages were manufactured from lunar
derived woven fiberglass, with a mass 0.02 times the material quantity to be
catapulted.
Differential velocity (A'V) requirements data in Table 4-2 shows a significant
difference for ion electric COTV's and MDRE's on the same transportation route.
I%fDRE AV's are based on point mass transfer requirements (Ref 1), while COTV
values have been obtained from work on the Earth Baseline (Concept A) for transfer
V
of large area SPS segments by the Boeing Company (Ref. 2). Some of this Concept
A AV is probably due to steering and attitude control losses associated
with the unwield.v SPS payload geometry, but the difference for COTV's transporting
high density bulkcargo is indeterminate based on Concept A data. For consistency
with theConcept A ENIR, scaled AV's consistent with the Earth Baseline values
were used for all LRU options, rather than point mass AV's. MDRE performance'at
these higher AV requirements is unacceptable so point mass values have been
retained for MDRE analysis. This resulted in very optimistic assessment of MDRE
when compared with the inn electric COTV. Reference 1 is included as Appendix E,
Section E. 1 in Volume III.
The initial EMR subsection defines the earth baseline material requirements, and
following subsections sequentially address LRU system Concepts B, C and D, which
have been updated based on ENIR analysis results.
4-14
4.2.1 Concept A - Earth Baseline
Concept A is the totally earth supplied comparison baseline. Its definition has been
obtained from the NASA-JSC "Satellite Power System (SPS) Concept Evaluation Program -
A Recommended Preliminary Baseline Concept," dated 25 January 1978. In this
scenario, earth materials are launched into low earth orbit (LEO) where they are
assembled into SPS segments at the LEO base. Each SPS will consist of eight
segments, two with microwave antennas and six without. After construction, these
segments will be transferred from L]_O to geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) by
argon propellant ion thrusters powered by partially deployed photovoltaic arrays
on the SPS segments. The eight segments are assembled into a complete 10 GW
SPS at the GEO base. No revisions to the option described in Section 4.1 have been made,
since Concept A is the representative NASA Earth Baseline.
Figure 4-2 shows a material flow diagTam for Concept A. It shows 354 earth material
units required for each 10 units of SPS completed in GEO. The vast majority of these,
331 units, are in the form of HLLV propellants. Total earth payload is 15.1 units
plus personnel. All crew size estimates are based on the manufacture of one 10 GW
SPS per year.
The Figure 4-2 material requirement identified as "COTV" refer to the ion thrusters
used for LEO to GEO transfer of SPS seg-ments. These ion thrusters comprise
an e.xpendable delivery method, and since they are not reused, the thrusters and
their propellant tankage contribute to steady state earth material requirements.
The steady state life support requirements for the earth baseline are obviously
insignificant (only 0.3% of earth launched payload) but have been included for later
comparison with LRU concepts. Life support requirement insignificance for Concept
A is important since for all lunar resource utilization options, life support needs will
increase, while most other earth launched material requirements (except hydrogen)
will decrease. The net effect of this will be a substantially lower EMR, as
demonstrated by the following LRU systems concepts.
4-15
EARTH LEO GEO
\ \ CARGO FABRICATION
\ \ 10.0 SPS
10.O SPS
sPS !
10.0 MATL
coTv
1.2 COTV UNITS
1.2 COTV
1
0.04 LS
2.5 LA R
1.2 LO 2
0.2 LH2
T FINAL
ASSEMBLY
LOGISTICS
331 0.04 LS 10.0 SPS
i )t /_'%!
L HLLViRO--P I
PROP. DEPOT
ITOTAL EARTH I
LEO /
GEO ,v,,-,-,. I 2.5 LA R
1.2 LO 2
REQMTS i 0.2 LH2
(_ Space slalionlhabilat
354 UNITS I
1 0.005 LS
J Salellile power system PROD & PROP I RO_
_ HABITAT
60 PERSONS
V
COTV- Transportalion
HABITAT
£)/H (E) vehicle lype
_ rl0in ol propellants 0.038 LS
(E) _arth 480 PERSONS

Propellants
2,160 CREW*i
0 -- Oxygen X.KX == kg MATL
I 7.7
H -- Hydrooe=) I 10 ko SPS @,,GEO
L PLV PROP J
A -- Av0on
0 Propellant d_pol
xTotal personnel requiring round trip transport per year
Figure 4-2. Concept A -- Earth Baseline SPS.
4-16
4.2.2 ConceptB - Lunar Mass Driver Catapult
This systems concept is characterized by the mass driver catapult/catcher for
lunar material transport, and lunar material processing at the space manufacturing
facility. Concept B is considered the most technologically advanced of the LRU
system concepts. Due to its innovative features, it exhibits considerable technical
risk but also offers significant potential benefits. Figures 4-3 and 4-4 show the
logistics flow diagram and requirements for the revised version of systems Concept
B. Figure 4-4 illustrates the transportation logistics flow of all materials including
payload, propellants, life support (LS) consumables, and lunar material processing
chemicals during the steady-state manufacturing phase of operations for LRU at the
89.6 percent level. Crew requirements reflect an SPS production rate of one 10
GW satellite annually.
Analysis of the original option B scenario as described in Section 4.1 resulted in
one significant revision: the mass driver reaction engine _[DRE) was replaced
by an ion--electric COTV employing lunar oxygen as propellant. This change was
CAn_,,,, ,, ...... ! LUNAR t "" -- _'-- MASS OlIIVER

•,-,.,u uuwN j BASE _ "- IMATERIALI
+ PERSONNEL I-_ - "_A _ .... '
OIH (L/E) / PLTV IP" \
"" • _ \ (MAINTENANCE) /MASS
0 (L| _ ....
GEO
Figure 4-3. LRU Concept B -- Lunar Mass Driver Catapult.
4-17
EARTH LEO GEO SMF LEO MOON
CARGO 1 I LOGISTICS I ELECTRIC COTV ,I LOGISTICS I / TOTAL LUNAR

1.04 SPS (E) _ 1 04 SPS (E) 4 0.004 LS i I MAT! RF:OTS
0 09 CHEM 009 CHEM i = ............
u., ,: L_ I | I 0.12 LS 14 _ _ '' _ | LUNAR SOIL

0.13LH 2 ||| .... A _ | 1.04 SPS(E) i i I
| SDV ]_ _ W 8.96SPS(L) _ • | - '
sDvPROP _ " t
--r -
_' 13LH22
°' I
I _ I i '
I
,I
I' ,'_..c..o,.o i
H 0 PROCESSING "
,','....... I ' T 2,16 LO2 ..,." L2 " I '
pROD _PROP
PROD & PROP I l
I I -0 016
.....LO 2 I [ ........... I !XI _'_'_'_
CATCHERh MASS
=DR_VERI
---1-'-" ,, I °'°°°"= I,# t •

: 1"''"'"ATE1*1
1 I
CATAPULT
I _ I/
I"ERSONNEL*I( TEMP
_. IJ HAB,TAT
I 12.16'O= I I [ ..... h / TEMP
13.o,= I o.oo sI I I',
! 6.99 I| "_,,....._ _36 PERSONS I '. k.,.. J
I ssPROP
'0_PACE \ _, * , , ,%'rv
- ..... SHUTTLE HABITAT I _ , MAINT .[
ITTLE _ PdTV_"'_I " " ( ,r
........ = kg MATE _ 1,365 PERSONS = _' TEI_ _ 0.004 LS I

^'^^ I0k-"o'SIS_ATGEO POTV "_SHEE"
_. y PLI'V I 48 PERSONS I
• Total personnel requiring round trip transport per year _--
Figure 4-4. LRU Concept B -- Mass Driver Catapult.
made necessary by poor MDRE performance when using transfer AV's consistent
with option A values. Even if theoretical &V's are employed for the MDRE, the
ion-electric COTV offers significant performance improvements due to its higher
specific impulse and reduced propellant requirements.
Specifically this COTV replacement is recommended because:
1) The COTV specific impulse is approximately 6 times _'eater than that for the
ivIDRE.
2) A lunar derived propellant, oxygen, is acceptable for use with an ion-electric
COTV. This reduces somewhat the MDRE advantage of using any available
waste material as reaction mass.
3) Study personnel feel strongly that if the MDRE were used, it should employ a
material such as oxygen for reaction mass. This will eliminate the safety
concern of solid high velocity exhaust particles in the vicinity of habitats, manu-
facturing facilities, and SPS's. Thus similar lunar propellant processing
4-18
requirements would be imposed for MDRE or ion electric COTV, since both use
oxygen propellant.
Figure 4-4 shows that only 32.11 total earth material units, consisting of 1.38 units
of payload plus SDV propellant must be launched from earth to construct 10 units of
SPS and deliver it to geosynchronous orbit. Since no lunar derived propellants are
needed to transfer material from the lunar surface to L 2, the lunar material require-
ments (LMR) are dominated by material requirements for SPS construction, rather
than for transfer vehicle propellants.
Sensitivity results obtained from EMR are summarized in paragraph 4.2.5. Details
of these sensitivity investigations are contained in Appendix B, Volume III of this Final
Report.
4.2.3 Concept C- Lunar LH2/LO 2 Chemical Rocket- This systems concept
employs conventional LO2/LH 2 rockets to transport SPS stock material manu-
factured at the lunar base into lunar orbit. Since all Concept C transportation
routes are serviced by either O2/H 2 chemical rockets or ion electric transfer
vehicles, this systems concept e.xhibits low technical risk with respect to its
transportation elements. The revised version of Concept C is shown in Figure 4-5,
, / \\
GEO I
x -. --. BASE
& PERSONNEL
)
LEO _ COTV
r
Figure 4-5. LRU Concepts C&D- Lunar Chemical Rockets.
4-19
and EMR results are defined in Figure 4-6 for the 89.6 percent LRU level. Crew
requirements reflect support for the annual production of one 10 GW SPS.
Analysis of the original option C scenario as described in Section 4.1 has resulted
in a revision to the transportation method for delivering lunar manufactured stock
material to the GEO fabrication facility. Originally, a large conventional LH2/LO 2
cargo transfer vehicle (CTV) was assumed for delivery of EPS components directly
from the lunar surface to GEO. The revision depicted by Figures 4-5 and 4-6 has
replaced this single large chemical rocket with two other vehicles:
1) A smaller LO2/LH 2 LTV to deliver SPS components from the lunar surface
to LLO.
2) " An ion electric COTV using lunar derived oxygen propellant to deliver the com-
ponents from LLO to GEO.
This revision provides a significant transportation performance improvement, and
requires less earth supplied hydrogen and lunar supplied oxygen.

I I I
V
CARGO SDV TOTAL LUNAR
.= LOGISTICS I' ELECTRIC COTV .I LOGISTIC S MATL REQMTS
1 04 SPS (E} t 04 SPS(Ei I I _ I I 8.96 SPS(L)
0 17 CHEM O.17CHEM I I or'o I I 0 17CHEM
0 13LS 10.0 MATL 0111 L 34.91 UNITS
1.07 LH 2 LUNAR SOIL
41.45
I t l
SDV PROP PROCESSING
L J
!.01 LO 2 |_ t.04 SPS(E) i I 2'45LO2
.o,LH2I_ 8,. sPs..i

I I ,o._"2 8.96
8.60
SPS (L)
LO 2
I[OTAL EARTH I
I 0.17 CHEM
MATL REQMTS I
b2 80 UNITS | 0.09 LO 2
I PROP
0.02 DEPOT
LH 2 1
PROD & PROP !
.-V- 1
! PiRSONNEel,
S.,CE_( _ _. POTV
"=J 0016
HABITATLS I
!_:.o OREW!
S.U_LE'_ 200 PERSONS
POTV
*Total personnel requiring round trip transport peryear
Fig_ure 4-6. LRU Concept C - LO2/LH 2 Lunar Transfer Vehicle.
4-2O
Figure 4-6 shows that 52.89 total earth material units, consisting of 2.41 units of
payload plus SDV propellant must be launched from earth to construct 10 units of SPS
and deliver it to geosynchronous orbit. Ei%IR sensitivity results are discussed in 4.2.5
of this volume and AppendLx B of Vob,me III.
The propellant requirements for the SDV and in-space transport vehicles (COTV's,
POTV's and LTV) are the key drivers for EMR and LMR respectively. The total lunar
material requirement is dependent on the total quantity of oxygen needed. Most of the
lunar oxygen is used for delivery of SPS materials/components from the lunar surface
to the SMF, which is assumed to be coincidently located to the SPS final assembly and
use location in GEO. Some lunar oxygen is recombine d with silicon to provide high
quality silica glass for SPS solar cell covers and substrate.
4.2.4 Concept D - Lunar Derived Rocket

F :
Systems Concept D is similar to Concept C as shown in Figure 4-5, except for the
vehicle used to transfer construction materials from the lunar surface to low lunar orbit.
The LTV has been revised from the LH2/LO 2 chemical rocket used in Concept C, to a
chemical rocket which derives all its propellants (fuel and oxidizer) from lunar
materials. This revision reduces considerably the quantity of hydrogen which must be
supplied from earth. The baseline all lunar propellant LTV or lunar derived rocket
(LDR) uses liquid oxygen as oxidizer and powdered aluminum as fuel. Alternative
fuels include mixtures of lunar metals including aluminum, calcium, iron, magnesium,
sodium and titanium.
The LDR originally assumed for SPS stock material delivery from the lunar surface to
GEO assembly base was a large single stage expendable vehicle. This expendable
vehicle is undesirable since extensive fabrication facilities are required at the lunar
base to manufacture LDR propellant tanks, and reprocessing facilities are needed in
El-- ÷
GEO to convert LDR propellant tankage into SPS components. A reusable vehicle for
lunar surface to GEO transport of cargo is a more desirable transportation solution.
4-21
Performance calculations, however, have shown that the lunar derived rocket (LDR)
does not have enough specific impulse to make a round trip flightfrom lunar surface
to GEO and back to the lunar base. Therefore, a revised Concept D baseline was
developed by replacing the expendable LDR with two other reusable vehicles:
I) A smaller LDR to deliver SPS stock materials from the lunar surface to LLO.
2) An ion electric COTV using lunar derived oxygen propellant to deliver these
components from LLO to GEO.
The employment of a reusable LDR reduces manufacturing operations on both the moon
(LDR propellant tank construction) and at the GEO assembly facility(tank reprocessing
into SPS components), as well as sig_nlficantly

reducing lunar propellant processing
requirements. The steady state material flow and personnel requirements for con-
structing one 10 GW SPS per year is depicted in Figure 4-7 for the revised Concept D
baseline. This shows that 37.06 total earth material units, consisting of 1.54 units
CARGO SDV
; I LOGISTICS 4 ELECTRIC COTV I LOGISTICS I ITOTAL LUNAR
'i I IMATL
REQMTS
1 04
0.28
SPS (E)
CHEM 0,28 CHEM I sPs -
I I 8.96 SPS (L) I
1o.28CHEMl
0.13 LS 013
1.04 SPS |E)
LS
0 09 LH 2 I_ _.I O.OMATL
I 11 O.'' ' LS II ILIJN-A-R-S(_iEI
55.68UNITS
"_o_. _ ,,'L,/" I \ I .
26.49 UNITS
I oY • /
PROP DEPOT FABRICATION V I PROP DEPOT |_ t
SDV PROP
L J
f 0.71 LO 2
009 LH 2 8-96 SPS (L) ! I 0:03 LH2 / 8.96 SPS (L)
I I - I 15.38 LO 2
I_OTAL
EARTH
! I
I
6.03
0.28
AI
CHEM
I
MATL
37.06
REQMTSl.
UNITS |
PROP
0.09
DEPOT
LO 2
,
I
y
SLAG
[
0.02 LH 2 I J J HAB,TAT J
PROD & PROP !
_,
PERSONNEL*
3,930CREW
_" ;] 0.016
HABITATLS I
I 200 PERSONS
II I SPACE _ P_TV
9 03 UNITS
I SS PROP
L ..... -J
POTV
*Total personnel requiring round trip transport per year

Figure 4-7, LRU Concept D -- Lunar Derived Rocket,
4-22
of payload plus SDV propellant must be luanched from earth to construct 10 units of
SPSanddeliver it to geosynchronousorbit. ENIRsensitivity results are discussed in
4.2.5 of this volume and AppendixB of Volume III. The total lunar material require-
ment for Concept D is dependent on the total quantity of aluminum needed, which nominally
requires that ten times this amount of lunar soft must be processed. A sufficient
quantity of all other required lunar derived materials are nominally contained within
the soil processed for aluminum recovery.
4.2.5 EMR Sensitivity Analyses
Initial sensitivity information was obtained as part of the Lunar Resource Utilization
Systems Concepts Definition, task. This data defined earth material requirements
(EMR) _nd lunar materlal requirements (LMR) as a function of the lunar mass fraction
used for SPS construction. The sensitivity of various vehicle designs, personnel sup-
port requirements, and processing chemical requirements received preliminary
evaluation by use of this material sensitivity technique.
Material requirements as a function of lunar resource utilization percentage for the LRU
system Concepts B, C and D are displayed in Figure 4-8. Earth material requirements
(EMR) include all earth payload plus the earth launch vehicle propellant required to
place this payload into LEO. Lunar material requirements (LSIR) reflect the total lunar
soil which must be mined to supply SPS material and transportation system propellants.
The following paragraphs summarize the material requirements sensitivity to lunar
resource utilization percentage used as an EPS construction material for each LRU con-
cept.
Concept B -- An interesting trend shown by this data is that both EMR and LMR decrease
with increasing percentages of lunar material in the SPS. The primary reason for this
is use of the solar or nuclear powered mass driver catapult (linear electromagnetic
J
accelerator) which provides propellant free (but not power free) launch of material from
4-23
2OO
Earlh malerlal B
Syslems
requiremenls C
concepls
D
6 150
1.11
or) (9
03 El
<
(/)
1:1..
_J 03
_< SPS
O baseline
Ul 13} IO0
LRU
I O 89.6%
T--
Lunar malerial
5O requiremenls
L 1 I 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 4-8. PERCENT OF SPS DERIVED FROM LUNAR RESOURCES
C (
the moon's surface. The remaining primary LMR driver is the oxygen propellant
required for cargo transfer from LEO to SMF. As the lunar material percentage
increases, the quantity of oxygen propellant needed for transfer of earth materials
©
decreases slightly. Both EMR and LMR for Concept B are lower at higher LRU
percentages than those for Concepts C and D.
Concept C -- The total earth material requirement is relatively high due to the large
percentage of earth payload devoted to hydrogen propellant for the lunar transfer
vehicle. The total lunar material requirement is dependent on the total quantity of
oxygen needed, which nominally requires that three times this amount of lunar soil
be processed. A sufficient quantity of all other lunar derived materials are contained
within the soil processed for oxygen recovery. Most of the lunar oxygen is used for
delivery of SPS materials/components from the lunar surface to LLO. These com-
bined propellant requirements result in a positive LMR slope.
Concept D -- The total lunar material requirement is dependent on the total quantity of
aluminum needed, which nominally requires that ten times this amount of lunar soil must
be processed. A sufficient quantity of all other lunar derived materials are nominally
contained within the soil processed for aluminum recovery. Most of the lunar oxygen
and aluminum is used as LDR propellant for delivery of SPS materials/components
from the lunar surface to LLO. These combined propellant requirements result in a
positive LMR slope.
For purposes of overall comparison, the SPS Earth Baseline EMR is off scale at a
material mass of 331. The EMR for LRU options at zero resource utilization for SPS
construction is significantly lower than this since lunar oxygen is employed for all
transportation vehicles operating above LEO. This reduces the EMR by a factor of
approximately 1.5. The remaining factor is due to the SDV's better stage efficiency
x.j (than HLLV) caused by its use of an expendable external tank.
4-25
In addition to basic EMR and LMR sensitivity to the percentage of lunar resource
utilization in SPSconstruction, sensitivity data was obtained on COTV type (ion electric
or MDRE), vehicle stage efficiencies, chemical loss fraction during processing, oxygen
recovery from lunar soil, personnel support requirements, and others. Table 4-3
summarizes some of this sensitivity data. All sensitivity results shown are referenced
to baseline LRU material requirements information at the 89.6 percent utilization level.
Of particular interest are results for LRU percentage and personnel requirements sensitivity
analyses:
o EMR is sensitive to the percent of SPS derived from lunar resources. A 10 percent
decrease in LRU results in EMR increases of 52, 34, and 49 percent for Concepts
B, C, and D respectively.
o EMR is relatively insensitive to crew size, with doubled personnel requirements
resulting in EMR increases of 27 and 17 percent for Concepts B and C.
Additional sensitive information is contained in Appendix B of Volume III.
Table 4-3. Material Requirements Sensitivity.
B C D
_% EMRwith -10% LRU +52 +34 +49
LMR with -10% LRU + 6 - 5 - 7
EMRwith4x Chemical +15 +17 +46
Loss Fraction @ 89.6%
LRU
_% EMRwith2x CrewSize +27 +17 N/A
@ 89.6% LRU
_% EMR with 2xion Electric N/A + 4 0
COTV Stage Efficiency @
89.6% LRU
_% LMRwithl.2× Lunar 0 + 8 +16
Cargo Xfer Vehicle Efficiency
@ 89.6% LRU
4-26
I ,W,_2
4.3 EMR COMPARISON AND PRELIMINARY CONCEPT ASSESSMENT
The three revised baseline Lunar Resource Utilization systems concepts defined in
Section 4. 2 were developed by assessing various options within each basic concept.
L --
This was done to determine the best method of constructing geosynchronous solar
power satelliteswith the least amount of material and supplies obtained from earth.
i ¸ _
The results of this activityare the material flow diagrams for LRU Concepts B, C
i
and D shown in Figures 4-4, 4-6 and 4-7, respectively.
When this comparison activity was originally planned, it was assumed that at least one
of the three LRU concepts, even when optimized for minimum steady state EMR, could
be eliminated due to its non-competitiveness with the others. This has not occurred.
All three Concepts B, C and D offer substantial EMR reductions with EMR factors at
9%, 15% and 10% of Earth Baseline respectively. A comparison of the data derived
from these three LRU concepts plus the Eax-th Baseline (Concept A) is contained in
Tables 4-4 and 4-5. Material requirements are listed per kilogram of SPS instead
of per 10 kg as done previously. The significance of these results is summarized
for each of the LRU concepts in the following paragraphs.
Concept B - Mass Driver/Catcher Delivery of Lunar Material to a Space Manufacturing
Facility -- Offers the lowest earth and lunar material requirements. The earth launched
cargo consists of only 0. 138 kg/kg SPS, made up of 0.104 SPS components plus 0. 034 of
other supplies. The lunar material requirements are also low, since very little lunar
derived propellant is consumed to transport lunar materials to the SMF (only LO 2 for
the terminal tug). These very attractive material requirements are balanced by a rela-
tively large number of in-space activity locations, and some technologically advanced
system elements (mass driver catapult and mass catcher). Due to these more numerous
and advanced system element requirements, Concept B's development cost will probably
be higher than that for Concepts C and D.

r'---
L _
V
4-27
Table 4-4. Comparison of LRU Concepts and Earth Baseline.
SYSTEMS CONCEPT
A B C D
Conven- Lunar
Earth Mass tional derived
( _aterial
kg ol SP-S'-_ G-E_ / baseline driver rocket rocket
Total earth matl reqmts 35.4 3.211 5.289 3.706
Earth launch propellants 33.9 3.073 5.048 3.552
Propellant for space use 0.4 0.013 0.107 0.009
Processing chemicals -- 0.OO9 0.017 0.028
Life support supplies 0.004 0.012 0.013 0.013
SPS components & material 1.12 0.104 0.104 0.104
Total lunar mall reqmts 1.715 3.491, 5.568

SPS components & material i 0.896 0.896 0.896
Propellants i 0.216 0.860 2.141
Slag 0.603 1.735 2 531
t
Total crew annual transport reqmts (persons) 2160 3042 3930 3930
Personnel @ LEO x tours per yr 480 x 4 -- I I
Personnel @ GEO x tours per yr 60 x 4 36 x 6 200 x 6 200 x 6

Personnel on Moon x tours per yr -- 48× 2 1365x 2 1365 x 2
Personnel @ SMFx tours per yr -- 1365x2
Space & Lunar activity locations 6 4 4
%J
Table 4-5. Summary LRTJ Concept Comparison With Earth Baseline.
SYSTEMS CONCEPT
A B C D
Conven. Lunar
Earlh Mass lionel Derived
kg
kg OF MATERIAL
OF SPS @ GEO/ Baseline Driver Rocket Rocket
Total Earth Material Requirements 35.4 3.21! 5.289 3.706

Total Payload 1.52 0.138 0.241 0.154
Earth Launch Propellants 33.9 3.073 5.048 3.552
Total Lunar Material Requirements 1.715 5.568

Products 1.112 1.756 3.037
Slag 0.603 1.735 2.531
Total Crew Transport Requiremenis 2160 3042 393Q 3930

(people per year)
4-28
Concept C - Lunar Processing With Stock Delivery Via Conventional Rockets to GEO
for Manufacturing and Assembly - has the highest earth material requirements and
intermediate lunar material requirements. The earth launched cargo consists of
0. 241 kg/kg SPS, made up of 0. 104 SPS components plus 0.137 of other supplies. The
majority of these other supplies are hydrogen propellants required for the chemical
lunar transfer vehicle (LTV) employed to deliver lunar manufactured stock materials
to space. The LTV derives its oxygen propellant from lunar materials, which is the
major contributor to increased lunar processing and mining requirements. Concept C
system elements are based on existing technology and many are scaled up versions of
previous space vehicles which results in low technical risk, which when combined with
the relatively low number of in-space activity locations, Should result in the lowest
LRU system development cost.
Concept D - Lunar Processing With Stock Delivery Via a Vehicle With Lunar Derived
Propellants - has intermediate earth material requirements and the highest lunar material
requirements. The earth launched cargo consists of 0.154 kg/kg SPS, made up of 0. 104
SPS components plus 0. 050 of other supplies. A majority of these other supplies are
processing chemicals needed to produce the large quantity of lunar propellants required
for the lunar derived rocket (LDR). The LDR uses liquid oxygen and powdered aluminum
obtained from the moon as its propellants. The combined requirement for these elements
is the driver for Concept D's very large lunar material mining and processing require-
ments. Concept D system elements are relatively conventional and comparable to those
in Concept C, with the exception of the LDR. The LDR represents a new unproven chemical
propulsion concept with associated development costs.
Since the steady state earth material requirements for these three LRU concepts are
relatively close (compared to the Earth Baseline), aid material requirements dif-
ferences may be generally compensated for by development costs, we recommend that

J
all three concepts be carried through the initial costing cycle and threshold determination
analysis.
4-29
4, 4 LUNAR MATERIALS PROCESSINGAND MANUFACTURING
V
The flow diagram of Figure 4-9 identifies the lunar material flow, processing steps
and manufacturing steps required to transform raw lunar material into a completed
10 GW solar power satellite,
The basic lunar derived materials required for the construction of the satellite and
transport of materials and components to various locations include native lunar glass,
oxygen, silicon, aluminum and iron, the latter two in pure and alloyed forms.
Lunar soil is beneficiated to recover free iron and glass fractions. The remainder is
processed by electrolytic and/or chemical means to extract oxygen, silica and metals.
The silica is further processed into clear silica glass sheet for solar cell substrates and
covers. Silicon is purified to semiconductor _o-rade material and _rown into ribbons
for fabrication into silicon solar cells. Aluminum and iron are processed by electron
beam vapor deposition, casting, and other means into sheet, wire and other required
stock forms and then fabricated into shapes and components required for the construction
of the solar power satellite. The native lunar glass is combined with sodium sulfate and
carbon from earth to manufacture foamed glass components.
The processes and principal facilities, required quantities, and forms of lunar derived
materials have been identified for every stage of the production sequence. Facility
mass and power estimates for the basic manufacturing equipment (electron beam vapor
deposition guns, casting machines, furnaces, etc. ) have been based on data for similar
earth production equipment. For in-space or lunar surface use the mass and perhaps
power consumption associated with these facilities can be reduced considerably. How-
ever, a significant quantity of peripheral equipment and tooling is required to support
each major manufacturing function. Application of the full earth mass to similar
facilities designed for in space use should adequately account for these undefined
peripherals. The components identified in Figure 4-9 correspond to the 89.6 percent
4-30
Surface Mim l Part
Lunar Soil ] Manufacture Component Assembly
! Native Glass
Klystron Radiators
Foamed Glass DC-DC Cony Heat Pipes
I Beneflclate -= Struts Struts Solar Cells
Waveguides
, _Fe Solar Cells
Si Cells
Processing Stock Cover Glass
& Refining Manufacture
AI Contacts Subassembly Fabrication
Machining
Aluminum Sheet Klystron Parts Photovoltaic Array
Aluminum Blankets , Structure
Iron Steel Waveguide "_IPTS
Castings End Ftgs Modules Structure
Silicon Aluminum Insulate Wire Power Klystron
Sendust
Kiystron Busses Module
Wire -- AI DC-DC Conv MPTS DC-DC Co,nv
Silica _11
Glass Plating Joints ule
LO2 _tron
Oxygen Powdered AI Final
Assembly
Filaments
Other
Glass "_ 10 GW SPS
Figure 4-9. Processing & Manufacturing Scope.
lunar material utilization level for construction of a I0 GW SPS. The following sub-
sections address each processing/manufacturing area of Figure 4-9 to assess tech-
niques, equipment requirements, and support functions for obtaining useful materials
and products from lunar soil in a form suitable for application in SPS space con-
struction. This information is formatted so that masses and costs of processing
equipment are available as a function of processing rate for alternative concepts and
processes. The discussion in this section includes a description of lunar materials
and their extraction processes, product manufacturing techniques and component
subassembly. SPS module fabrication and total satellite final assembly is not included
since these operations and facility requirements are assumed to be identical to those
for the Earth Baseline SPS.
4-31
4.4.1 THE LUNAR SURFACE- COMPOSITIONAND CHARACTERISTICS. The
surface of the moon is characterized by large dark areas, designated Maria,
and light colored areas generally a kilometer higher in elevation than the Maria. These
highland areas are severely cratered as a result of meteorite impacts. Chemical
analyses of surface and slightlysubsurface soil and rock samples have been performed
on material collected by six Apollo and two Luna spacecraft (Reference 3).
The composition of the lunar crust, insofar as the sampling to date permits, is some-
what similar to that of earth's, in that oxygen and silicon comprise the maj or elements,
and at least eight of the ten most abundant elements in the earth's crust are also among
the most prevalent in the lunar crust. Of the 10 most abundant elements in earth's
crust, see Table 4-6, only hydrogen, at approximately 50 ppm, exists in only trace
quantitieson the moon. In addition, sodium and potassium are only one-twenty-fifth
to one-tenth as plentifulon .themoon as on earth.
A distingnzishing characteristic of the lunar crustal surface is its relatively homogeneous

V
composition as compared to earth. While there is some distinctive difference in com-
position between mare and highlands soils, particularly with respect to titanium, iron
Table 4-6. Earth & Lunar Crustal Compositions.
Earth Earth Moon (PPM/Wt)

Rank Element PPM/WI Mare Highlands
1 Oxygen 466,000 417,000 446,000
2 Silicon 277,000 212,000 210,000
3 Aluminum 81,300 69,700 133,000
4 Iron 50,000 132,000 48,700
5 Calcium 36,300 78,800 106,800
6 Sodium 28,300 2,900 3,100
7 Potassium 25,900 1,100 800
8 Magnesium 20,900 57,600 45,500
9 Titanium 4,400 31,000 3,100
10 Hydrogen 1,400 54 56
11 Phosphorus 1,050 660 500
12 Manganese 950 1,700 675
17 Carbon 200 100 100
20 Chlorine 130 26 17
21 Chromium 100 2,600 850 v
4-32
and aluminum, there is little variation from location to location within each of the two
areas, insofar as determined by soil analyses conducted to date.
Unlike on earth, no concentrations of specific minerals have thus far been found on the
moon. For example, while the carbon content of the earth's crust is only twice that of
the moon's, 200 ppm versus 100 ppm, enormous deposits of nearly pure carbon (coal)
occur in many locations on earth, while the moon carbon appears to be quite uniformly
distributed over the entire lunar sdrface. Thus, except for very few elements, there
does not appear to be any preferable location for mining insofar as concentration of
specific elements is concerned. An extensive geological survey of the lunar surface
to locate possible ore bodies is warranted before initiating major mining operations.
The principal lunar derived elements required for the SPS, namely oxygen, silicon,
aluminum and iron all occur in lunar soil in quantities varying from 5% to 45_c by
weight, with oxygen and silicon being relatively uniform in distribution regardless of
location. Aluminum is more prevelant in highlands soil and iron in mare regions.
Other metallic elements which may be useful as propellants, alloying agents in aluminum
and iron alloys, or for various other applications include calcium, magnesium,
titanium, chromium, sodium, managanese and potassium.
Trace elements available in low to 100' s of ppm are also listed. Many of these are
recoverable from lunar soil by simply heating it and recovering the evolving gases.
This is especially true for hydrogen, which has been uniformly deposited by the solar
wind in the top several centimeters of lunar soil.
A third source of lunar materials is basin eJecta. The basin ejecta consists of a combination
of lunar rock and meteoric material. The lunar rock is lunar soil which has been lithi-
fled by the meteoric impact. This material is also referred to under the acronym KREEP
4-33
since it tends to be high in potassium _), Rare Earth Elements and P_hosophorus.
The lunar surface and near subsurface are anhydrous and essentially devoid of carbon
and organic material. They consist of rock, complex metal oxides and silicates.._s
described in the Handbook of Lunar Materials (Reference 3), the principal lunar
minerals consist of plagioclase feldspars, olivine and pyroxene. Significant amounts
of ilmenite occur in mare regions, and small amounts of spnels and lesser amounts
of many other minerals are widely distributed over the lunar surface, Table 4-7
lists the principal minerals in lunar materials.
Table 4-7, Percent Occurrence of Minerals in Lunar Materials,
Mare Anorthositic Crystalline Vitric Fragmental Light Matrix

Mineral * Basalt Rocks Breccias Breccias Breccias Breccias Soil
Pla_ioclase
(CaAI2Si2Os) 15-35 40-98 50-75 15-50 - 70-90 10-60
lqrnenite
(FeTiO3) 0.-28 trace 1-2 - 2-12 - 0,5-5
Olivine
I-5 - 0-5 0-4
(Mg2SiO4, _ 0-35 0.-40
\Fe2SiO4 ) #
il_yr°xene x
5-30 - 5-20
igSiO3 ' CaSiO3,_ 40-65 0-40
FeSiO3 ]
* Compositions of principal constituentsare shown for each mineral.
The lunar plagtoclase feldspars consist primarily of anorthite (Ca A12Si208) in
amounts exceeding 80%, with the remainder consisting of albite (Na A1Si308) and
orthoclase (KA1Si3Os). Olivine consists of solid solutions of forsterite ('Mg2SiO4)
and fayalite (Fe2SiO4) and contains limited amounts of calcium, chromium, titanium
4-34
and aluminum in solution. The lunar pyroxenes contain a mLxture of enstatite
(MgSiO3), wallastoaite (CaSiO3) and ferrosilite (FeSiO3), with varying amounts of

oxides of aluminum, titanium, manganese, chromium and sodium in solution.
The amounts of the latter th.ree oxides in pyroxenes are generally under 1%.
Ilmenite minerals are mLxtures of ilmenite (FeTiO3) and small amounts of geikielite
(MgTiO3) along with other minor constituents. Lunar spinels are complex mixtures
of Fe2WiO 4, FeCr204, FeA1204, MgCr204, MgA1204 and Mg2WiO 4, and contain many
minor and trace elements.
The lunar soil has been highly pulverized by meteoric impact, and the lunar
surface is covered by a fine, silty and angular sand with a scattering of an_o-ular
rocks. This fragmented material consists of as much as 25% by weight under
20 ].tin in diameter and more than 70% under 150 #m in size. Approximately
90% by weight of the lunar soil consists of particles under 1 mm in size. Much
of the soft exists as agglutinates of stone and mineral fragments bonded together by
glass droplets which became molten by meteoric impact and then resolidified.
Free glass and iron particles are also present, the latter amounting to 0.15 - 0.20_
by weight of the lunar soil. The lunar highlands contain a higher percentage of
plagioclase than the mare soile, with the latter being richer in pyro_enes, olivine
and ilmenite.
All minerals listed in Table 4-7 contain appreciable amounts of oxygen, the element
used in all LRU systems concepts as transfer vehicle propellant. Three of the four
minerals contain silicon, the element most extensively used in SPS construction. While
aluminum is a basic constituent of only plagioclase feldspars, it may also be dissolved
to an appreciable extent in pyroxenes. Iron is present in ilmenite, olivine and, to
a lesser extent, in pyroxenes.. Depending upon the location, these four elements
of interest occur in the concentration ranges shown in Table 4-8. Other prevalent
element percentages are also identified.
4-35
Table 4- 8. Lunar Materials Available.
Percent by Wel .ghl
Elements Mare Highlands Basin Ejecta
Identified as Oxygen 39.7-42.3 44.6 42.2-43.8
Principal Reqts Silicon 18.6-21.6 21.0 21.1-22.5
For Constructing Aluminum 5.5- 8.2 12.2-14.4 9.2-10.9
SPS Iron 12.0.15.4 4.0- 5.7 6.7-10.4
Calcium 7.0. 8.7 10.1-11.3 6.3- 9.2
Other Useful Magnesium 5.0- 6.8 3.5- 5.6 5.7- 6.3
Materials of Titanium 1.3- 5.7 0.3 0.8- 1.0
-"0.1% Availability Chromium 0.2- 0.4 0.1 0.2
Sodium 0.2- 0.4 0.3- 0.4 0.3- 0.5
Manganese 0.2 0.1 0.1
Potassium 0.06 - 0.07 - 0.13 -
0.22 0.09 0.46
Trace Elements Hydrogen, Carbon, Nitrogen 100 ppm

Useful in Fluorine, Zirconium, Nickel
Processing & Zinc, Lead, Chlorine,

Manufacturing Sulfer, Other Volatiles 5 to 100 ppm
While the concentrations of oxygen and silicon are fairly uniform in their distribution
throughout the lunar surface, the concentrations of aluminum and iron vary by
factors of approximately 3 to 4; each being highest in areas where the other is lowest.
Aluminum is most abundant in highland locations and iron in mare regions.
The depth of the lunar soil, or reg01ith, varies considerably _th location. The
regolith depth of mare surfaces ranges from 2 to 10 meters (References 4 and 5). The
highland areas, which are by far the oldest lunar features, have developed regoliths
hundreds of meters to possibly kilometers deep (Reference 6 and 7).
EFFECT OF LUNAR ENVIRONi%[ENT ON LUNAR MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY
The lunar surface environment is radically different from that of earth, being essentially
anhydrous and characterized by a high vacuum. This environment, combined with the
very low and widely dispersed amounts of crustal hydrogen and carbon must exert a
significant effect upon the selection of lunar materials recovery processes.
4-36
When one examines the history of metallurgy on earth, it is immediately evident how
profound was the effect of earth's environment upon the development of the art and
science of metallurgy. Man first found native gold and meteoric iron in their free
Ii!?
state and learned how to work these malleable metals. Then the more easily smeltable
metals were refined as man discovered that heating their ores in a reducing environ-
ment (burning in a wood or coal fire) would permit the recovery of copper, zinc and
tin. Undoubtedly these developments were initially the result of fortuitous accidents
rather than deliberate design. To accomplish them required the availability of both
concentrated ores and supplies of combustable fuel. As technology developed, more
sophisitcated methods were developed to win the more abdurate metals from their ores.
In addition, enriched ore bodies were discovered which permitted more efficient
recovery of their metals. Available water supplies and chemicals were employed to
leach and concentrate the desired metals and additional sources of energy were deve-
T loped to effect the reduction of metallic compounds by thermal, electrical and chemical
means.
The moon presents an entirely different combination of environments; little or no water,
hydrogen and carbon, no fuel and no atmosphere to sustain combustion. Solar energy
can, however, be effectively harnessed on the moon and in space. Since man cannot
efficiently take earth's environment with him once he escapes his planet, he must free
his thinking from earth's bounds and seek to exploit whatever new environment he finds
himself in if he wishes to sustain himself there. This altitude has dominated the
evaluation of techniques to develop a lunar based materials industry to support the
construction of an SPS system from lunar derived materials. Table 4-9 outlines a
number of ore separation, metal extraction and production processes that may lend
themselves more readily or as readily to a lunar or space environment than to an earth
environment.
m_
4.4.2 MINING AND BENEFIClATION OF LUNAR REGOLITH MINING-
The location of lunar mining sites will be determined by a number of factors including
4-37
Table 4-9. Materials Extraction & Manufacturing.
V
Processes Adaptable to Lunar & Space Environment
Separation Processes Environmental Compatibility

Magnetic
Electrostatic
Dry processes
Low, zero & controlled gravity
Centrifugal
Metal Extraction Processes

Melting & Electrolysis
Vacuum metallurgy Vacuumenergy
Solar
New techniques
Metal Shape Production Processes

Solar energy
Melting & casting Vacuum
Vapor deposition l
Powdered metallurgy
V
material requirements, processing methods, and the transportation technique used
for delivering materials from lunar surface to an in-space construction site. If a
mass driver catapult is assumed as the transport method, then an equatorial mining
base located near 33.1 degrees east longitude appears to be the best choice (Reference
8] 9). If conventional or lunar material propelled chemical rockets are assumed the
mining site selection is less constrained. Polar locations may even be suitable if the
increased lunar transfer vehicle fleet size and/or propellant requirement needed to
accommodate the inclination correction is tolerable. To maintain flexibility it
would be desirable to locate the lunar mining base convenient to both highlands and
mare regions. Thus revised material requirements could be easily accommodated
without base relocation or institution of inefficient surface transport techniques.
Considering the sandy nature of the lunar soil, the least expensive method of mineral
4-38
r •
collection would undoubtedly be by surface mining, using scraper-loaders and tran-
sporting soil via surface vehicles or conveyors to a nearby beneficiation or space
transportation facility. Automated material collection is desirable since operations
are repetitious and long term exposure on the lunar surface may subject workers to
harmful radiation during periods of solar flare activity. An excellent study of a "lunar
strip miriing system" has been performed by Dr. David Carrier for the Lunar and
Planatary Institute (Reference 10). His recommended system uses remotely controlled
skip loaders and haulers to collect and transport lunar soil to the lunar base proces-
sing or launch facility. His analysis considers on and off-site beneflciation and a
wide range of operational sensitivities. One conclusion of this work is that the bene-
flciation location and de'gree of beneflciation performed has a significant influence on
mining operations and equipment requirements.
The data of Reference l0 for transporting all surface mined material to the central
lunar processing plant has been used to estimate mining equipment requirements.
This data, included in the left hand portion of Figure 4-10 was derived using con-
servative assumptions for equipment mass and mining efficiency.
BENEFI CIATION
Under all proposed LRU scenarios and systems concepts, beneficiation of lunar soil
is done on the moon and in close proximity to the mining site or sites, since the
transport of gangue is uneconomical and the moon's gravity allows initial separation
of minerals by sieving, electrostatics, or magnetically.
The degree of beneficiation to be performed on lunar soil depends upon the specific
materials which are to be recovered. Lunar material requirements for construction
of satellite power systems is limited to lunar derived oxygen, silicon, aluminum,
iron and glass. Free iron and glass particles can be recovered from lunar soil by
combinations of seiving, magnetic and electrostatic separation.
4-39
Mining Beneficlation
/ ,,_-_. VIBRATORY SCREEN & CONVEYOR

DEPTH ,, 2m
.....,.oo°,,o.
• ," . * :. .
(2} 12.5T LOADERS (C) DENSITY ,, 1.STlm 3
INDUCTION ( S'i:_GE _'. ;
ELECTRODE {;'J'-_--.">_ _ . t. ;
|
° ;;.
:.
..!
*.
•
.
•
_- : o
_• _' . i •
(2) 50 T HAULERS (C) ";_CENTRAL

• PROCESSING
PLANT
B C D LRU concept B C D
348 503 1,162 Matl (kT/yr) 332 503 1,162
125 250 375 Equipment mass (T) 18 27 60
15 30 45 Power reqd (kW) 10 15 34
"Lunar Strip Mining System," Reference source

"Electrostatic Separation
W. David Carrier III, June 1978. Techniques for Lunar Materials,"
Ion I. lnculet, June 1978.
Figure 4-10. Mining & Beneficiation.
The combined oxygen requirements for propellant and high quality, silica glass (solar
cell covers and substrate) constitute significant lunar material recovery require-
ments for LRU systems concepts. Silicon is the most needed element in Concept B,
oxygen is the primary element needed in Concept C, while aluminum propellant re-
quirements are dominate in Concept D.
The recovery of oxygen and silicon from lunar soils would not be aided per se by
beneficiation. Since pure anorthite contains in excess of 19% aluminum as compared
to its 5 to 15% concentration in lunar soils, beneficiation to separate and extract
anorthite could be advantageous when aluminum is the chief material being recovered.
Likewise, beneficiation to concentrate ilmenite, which contains 36.8% iron, would be
desirable when i_'on is the material being sought. However, since both aluminum and
4-40
iron, along with oxygen and silicon are required for the SPS and its support missions,
beneflciation to concentrate any of these four elements may not prove particularly
advantageous except in the cases of free iron mud glass particles.
As previously mentioned, these two materials may be separated by magnetic and
electrostatic means respectively. Fine particles of glass constitute a significant per-
centage of the finer fractions of lunar soil. For example, a sample of Apollo 17 mare
soil showed 11.4% by weight to fall in the size range of 45-90 pro. Of this, more
than 25% by volume consisted of glass particles (Reference 3, Table 7-a). Glass
particles account for an even greater proportion of the very fine fractions of lunar soil;
constituting 30 to 50% by weight of the 5-10 _m size range (Reference 11).
The presence of large quantities of fine glass particles in lunar soil is particularly
relevant to the recommended use of foamed glass as primary structure for the SPS
solar array and antennas. Foamed glass is commercially manufactured from fine
particles of ground glass by the addition of small quantities of foaming agents and
the application of heat. Thus beneficiation of lunar soil to recover the large amounts
of fine glass particles may permit the direct production of all of the foamed glass
needed for the SPS with few or no intermediate steps required to prepare the glass
for foaming.
The recovery of the free iron in lunar soil by means of magnetic separation can pro-
vide a significant proportion of this metal's requirements for the SPS. By magnetic
separation, each 100,000 tons of lunar soil may yield 150 - 200 tons of iron.
It is proposed to beneficiate lunar soil by first sieving it to separate it into two size
fractions, one under and one over 90 pm in diameter. The former will approximate
60% and the latter 40% of the mass of the lunar soil. The under 90 _m size fraction
V
is further processed by magnetic and electrostatic separation to recover iron and
glass particles respectively. The glass particles may represent 1/3 of the mass of
4-41
the smaller size fraction, or approximately 20%of the lunar soil mass. The remain-
der of the smaller size fraction can then be processed to recover oxygen, silicon,
aluminum and the remainder of the iron neededfor the SPSand its support facilities.
By using this approach and assuming an appropriate element recovery percentage
during processing, the tom/quantity of lunar soft which must be mined and beneficiated
can be determined for each systems concept. Since beneficiation is used only for the
purpose of separating glass particles and free iron from the bulk of lunar soil prior
to further processing, and no soft is discarded prior to processing, beneficiation
should be restricted to either the lunar processing plant or the space manufacturing
facility. Beneficiation at the mining site only makes sense if substantial amounts of
gangue can be separated and deposited at the mine prior to transporting the ore to a
processing facility.
Mass and power requirements for beneficiation equipment have been estimated from
data contained in Reference 12. This work, conducted by Dr. Ion Inculet for the
Lunar and Planetary Institute, assumed use of mobile beneficiation equipment at
the mining site. The information contained in the right-hand portion of Figure 4-10
is for fixed benefieiation equipment located in (or near) the central lunar processing
plant. Equipment mass has been derived from Reference 12 data by assuming that
37% of Dr. Inculet's equipment mass estimate was allocated to mobility functions.
Power estimates were applied directly based on data contained in Table 3 of Reference
12.
4.4.3 EXTRACTION OF MATERIALS FROM LUNAR REGOLITH
Whether performed on the lunar surface or in the SMF, the extraction of metals
and oxygen from lunar soil will require energy and the use of some materials and
facilities which must be imported from earth. These will include at least one or more
of the following: hydrogen, carbon, chlorine, acids, special catalysts, water,
solar collectors, tanks and piping, pumps and power supplies.

V
4-42
It is generally agreed that most earth-based processes for smelting and refining of
metals are not applicable to the lunar or SMF environments because they employ
considerable quantities of other materials and equipment which are not available on the
moon and must be brought up from earth. A variety of processes have been proposed
for the extraction of lunar materials, most of which have not been reduced to practice
and many of which have little other than theoretical bases for their justification. A
comparison of these processes for reducing lunar soil to obtain useful constituents is
contained in Table 4-10.
Assessment of these processing techniques must be accomplished for the particular
material requirements associated with construction of satellite power systems and
manufacturing of propellants for cargo transfer. Previous processing investigations
have not considered exclusive extraction of just a few lunar soil constituents, and
have not accounted for the very large oxygen propellant requirement.
This overriding requirement for oxygen propellant necessitates a re-examination
of the extraction processes which have been proposed for the recovery of lunar
materials. Another important factor dictating a review of the possible lunar
material recovery options is that the LRU study recommendation for lunar materials
utilization involves major usage of only four of the seven lunar elements which exist
in concentrations in excess of 1% by weight. These four are oxygen, silicon,
aluminum and iron. It would obviously be most efficient if materials extraction
processes could be developed which confine themselves to the materials of interest
and which do not require extensive chemical and mechanical processing of unneeded
materials.
The two processes which have been suggested by Dr. R. D. Waldron (Reference 13),
involve essentially wet chemical reactions requiring solution of the beneficiated
lunar regolith in an acid or base, followed by selective precipitation, hydrolysis,
electrodeposition or ion exchange reactions to extract specific elements and com-
pounds. These processes involve the transport from earth to the moon or space
4-43
Table 4-10. Suggested Processes for Extraction of SPS Materials
From Lunar Soils.
Applicable to
Extraction Process Status Moon SMF Problem/Risk Areas
Carbochlorination, electrolysis Some pilot No No Requires carbon, chlorine and water from
of fused salts or reduction by plant earth. Impractically large amount of
reaction with metals experience chlorine, power and carbon pyrolysis facility
may be required.
Carbothermic and silicoth- Pilot plant No No Serious materials problems at temperatures

ermic reductions; electro- operation > 2,000°C. Requires large amounts of
lysis or reduction by chemical on earth earth supplied materials and process equipment.
reactions.
Acid leach (IIF} or basic leach Theoretical Yes Yes Requires acid bases, sodium,other chemicals,
(NaOlt), followed by electrolysis, water and complex chemical processing equip-
t ion exchange, etc. ment transported from earth• Corrosion and

equipment leakage, variable soluability of
fluorides, and Na-O 2 electrolysis may pose
technical problems•
Electrolysis of in-situ molten Experimental Yes Yes High chemical stability of SiO 2 may limit
lunar soil. ! oxygen and silicon recovery by electrolysis and
necessitate alternative process for silicon
extraction. Solar collector and power equip-
ment for electrolysis must be transported
from earth.
Volatilization of lunar soil and Theoretical Possibly No Iligh temperatures required, severe materials
fractional distillation. problems, no experimental work has been done.
Reduction of molten lunar soil Experimental Yes Yes Requires large amount of methane and high
by methane, followed by elect- temperature crucibles transported from earth.
lyric separation• Exothermic reactions require dissipation of
large quantities of heat.
Soda-lime slnterlng Pilot plant No No

Requires large amounts of CaCO3, Na2CO 3
peration and water transported from earth.
manufacturing facility of water, acids or bases, tanks, piping, pumps, materials
handling machinery and other more or less standard earth chemical processing
equipment.
i
E_ In order to minimize the transport of earth materials to lunar or space facilities,
the proposed extraction processes necessitate a closed system with essentially
complete recovery and recycling of water and chemicals (fluorine, sodium, etc.).
Since most of the process chemicals also react with the unneeded lunar materials,
these must also be recycled and recovered by further chemical processing, greatly
complicating the entire lunar materials extraction system. This becomes especially
umvieldy when the requirement for one lunar material greatly overshadows the
rest or when only a few of the many elements present in lunar soil are needed.
A further difficulty with the proposed aqueous chemistry extraction processes
is the fact that leaks in any system could result in catastrophic losses of gaseous or
liquid reactants, resulting in system shutdowns and the need to replace water
and chemicals by further transport from earth. Normal earth based aqueous
chemical processing plants, particularly those using strong acids and bases, are
"frequently plagued by leaks. The reliability of lunar or space based plants of
this type is suspect.
It must be constantly kept in mind that the moon is essentially carbon- and water-less,
and has relatively low amounts of strong acid or base forming elements. These
four ingredients constitute the foundation for normal earth types of hydro-and pyro-
metallurgical extraction processes. The lunar and space environments differ radi-
cally from earth's; the former is characterized by high vacuum, reduced or no
gravitational attraction and ready access to solar irradiation the entire time the
lunar surface or space manufacturing facility is exposed to sunlight. It would
thus be advantageous to consider material extraction processes utilizing as many
as possible of the lunar or space environmental characteristics and a minimum of
earth' s.
4-45
The lunar materials extraction process proposed for the Lunar Resources Utilization
for Space Construction Study involves melting of the lunar regolith by solar heating,
followed by electrolytic reduction of the molten mass to recover oxygen, silicon,
aluminum and iron. This melting can conceivably be accomplished in situ, or with a
flow-through furnace constructed primarily of lunar material.
MELTING AND ELECTROLYSIS OF LUNAR SOIL
The initial concept for solar melting of lunar soil considered the use of a mirror
system equivalent to 500-800 suns capable of generating a flux density of 900 kW/m 2
in the focal zone. Since solar heating is only feasible during the lunar day, lunar
equatorial processing facilities are constrained to operating during a ,_ 320 hour
period every 28 earth days. The optimum location for a solar melting facility is at
the lunar pole where sunlight is constantly available, although transportation con-
siderations make polar locations less desirable.
For in- situ melting, application of 900 kW/m 2 will result in very rapid surface V
melting, but the very low thermal conductivity of lunar soil will greatly impede
heat transfer to and delay melting of subsurface material. The conductivity at
the mean lunar surface temperature of 216°K is approximately 1.5 × 10 -5 W/cm-K.
This very low value results both from .the inherent low thermal conductivity of
silicates and the low bulk density of the lunar surface soil. In-situ measurements
of the thermal conductivity of lunar soil made during the Apollo 15 and 17 moon
flights yielded somewhat higher values of 1.4 to 3.0 × 10 -4 W/cm- K at depths
of 50 to 250 cm below the surface. This was attributed to the large increase in
soil compaction and grain boundary contact with depth (Ref. 14). Lunar soil
temperatures at these depths are in the range of 250-255°K.
The low thermal conductivity of lunar soil thus makes it infeasible to melt material
within a reasonable period by directing heat down onto the lunar surface. Solar
melting could be more efficiently performed if the newly molten material were
constantly removed, exposing fresh solid material to the solar radiation. V
4-46
This can be done either in situ by tunneling, or by constructing a furnace which
provides a constant flow of lunar material through the focal plane of a solar
mirror. One technique of accomplishing this is shown in Figure 4-11. The
furnace is constructed by tunneling both horizontally and vertically into a
mound of lunar material, focusing the mirror system into the horizontal bore, and
dropping lunar soil down the vertical shaft onto a ledge in the focal zone. The
material is melted in the focal zone and runs off into a well in front of the ledge.
The material in the well remains molten and is superheated by the radiant energy
within the horizontal shaft. A drain is provided for removing molten slag, so a
fresh charge can accumulate in the well.
Lunar soil
conveyor
Al203 °r MgO _ k/_i _
Furnace /,;1,;'/;Il,
;".\
Solar _." + -- i I";'!;i',k.

energy, 02=1r _ 171,; ', _,,t,
Slag fi _<" S"_,_",_,7,_ilJ,\
J/_,lil muunu /17/,\
Figure 4-11. Proposed Lunar Material Melting Facility.
Earth type basalts and shale having chemical compositions approximately similar
to that of lunar soils have liquidus temperatures in the range of 1200-1300°C
(Ref. 15). These minerals are quite viscous at and near their melting tempera-
tures and, if electrolysis is to be successfully accomplished, their fluidity must
be increased. One desirable technique for decreasing viscosity is by fluxing,
preferably with halogen salts, which minimize operating temperature and electrode
materials problems and improve bath electrical conductivity. This would require
the transport of considerable quantities of fluxing materials from earth, however,
4-47
since halogen compoundsare not available on the moonexcept in very minute V
amounts. As an alternative it may be possible to employ lunar minerals as fluxes
to reduce the melting points of lunar soils and increase their fluidity. Ilmenite,
wallaston ite (CaSiO 3) and other lunar minerals when added to anorthite or anorthosite
produce eutectics having melting points several hundred degrees lower.
Raising the temperature will also increase fluidity, but at the cost of aggravating
electrode materials problems at the higher operating temperatures. Since the
molten pool is within the horizontal bore, its surface will be exposed to the radiant
energy traversing the shaft and may be superheated by as much as 100-200°C
above the liquidus temperature. With the molten lunar soil being contained within
the mounded lunar regolith, the major materials problems will be confined to the
electrodes and the oxygen and metal recovery systems.
Experimental work is needed to obtain data oa the thermal conductivity, emissivity
and thermal absorptivity of lunar anorthite and ilmenite at and near their melting
temperatures. The rough calculations made for this study were based both on
assumed values and published data on earth rocks of compositions that were different
from the lunar materials.

w
More data are also needed on portions of phase equilibrium diagrams of the
anorthite-olivine-pyroxene system to determine if lower melting point fluid
electrolytes could be made by judicious beneficiation and mLxing of lunar minerals.
Consideration should also be given to the search for suitable fluxing materials
which could be added in small amounts to lunar minerals to improve the operating
characteristics of electrolytic cells.
Thermal analyses are necessary to more precisely calculate heat losses, thermal
gradients in the lunar regolith surrounding the molten material, the sensitivity
of heat losses to surface contamination and roughness of the molten pool, etc.
4-48
Thermal losses due to mirror materials and geometrical irregularities must be
minimized to make solar melting feasible. Sincemirror arrays of 450 to 800 suns
(i. e., mirror areas 450 to 800times the surface area to be heated) represent a
substantial area, the surface reflectivity, flatness and focusing of mirrors become
critical. Mirrors made of light weight aluminized Kapton film mounted on a sun
following system would provide the solar heating. A more extensive discussion of
large solar furnaces and mirrors is included in Appendix C of Volume III.
Electrolysis of the molten lunar soil would be conducted to recover oxygen and the
other materials required for fabricating SPS's and supporting the lunar and in-
space facilities. These include aluminum, silicon, iron and glass. It is estimated
that at 100% efficiency, approximately 85 MW of electrical energy is sufficient to
produce 100 metric tons of oxygen during 12 hours of operation. Probably 50%
efficiency is the most that can be practicably attained. Control of voltage during
electrolysis of the molten lunar soil permits extraction of aluminum, iron, and
silicon, The high chemical stability of SiO 2 will require high levels of power to
disassociate it, possibly resulting in arcing at the electrode-electrolyte interface
at the high voltages necessary. This may limit the amount of oxygen which can be
recovered from lunar soil to approximately 50% of its total quantity; i. e., the
amount of oxygen which can be recovered from lunar soil to approximately 50% of its
total quantitu; i. e., the amount of oxygen linked to other than silicon. This may
also necessitate consideration c_ alternative pro cesses for recovering elemental
silicon. Appendix C provides additional information on the electrolysis of lunar soil.
Depending upon the specific end use requirements, glass will probably be provided
from two sources; from beneficiation of the < 90 pm particle size fraction to recover
free glass and from the chemical recombination of silicon and oxygen to make high
purity silica glass. Iron will also be obtained from two sources; magnetic beneficiation
of free iron ( -_ 0.15% of lunar soil), and by electrolysis of molten lunar soil.
4-49
Limited prior work performed by the Bureau of Mines has demonstrated the feasibility
V
of recovering oxygen from molten silicate rocks by electrolysis (Ref. 16). This
was accomplished by dissolving the silicate rocks in molten halides and electrolyzing
them at temperatures in the range of 1050- 1250°C, using a silicon carbide cathode
and an iridium anode. The melts were contained in a boron nitride crucible. Oxygen
was liberated at the cathode while a variety of metals including iron, aluminum,
silicon, sodium, barium, manganese, titanium, calcium and others accumulated at
the cathode.
While the experimental work performed at the Bureau of Mines was limited, the
results were encoura_ng in that cell gases containing 14 volume percent oxygen
were obtained along with an anode current efficiency of 55%. Problems were
initially encountered with electrode corrosion, but these were successfully solved.
More serious problems were encountered with the deterioration x_ith time of the
cell performance which was evident as increased electrical resistance of the melt
and by a reduction in oxygen content being generated. In addition, relatively little
electro-reduction of the silica was obtained during the experiments.
Iridium, which was used for the electrolysis anode material, is not only scarce
but is very expensive and should be replaced by another refractory corrosion
resistant metal. If none can be found, a molybdenum or tungsten anode with a thin
iridium clad or electroplated surface could be used.
Research and development work will be necessary to optimize the electrolysis of
lunar soils under lunar environmental conditions. Because of the effects of
vacuum on the vapor pressures of metals at various temperature}, metals will
be liberated at the cathode in solid, liquid and vapor form. Aluminum, calcium,
magnesium, sodium, potassium and manganese would be in vapor form, iron
and silicon may be liquid or solid depending upon bath temperature, while titanium
will deposit on the cathode in solid form. Work is needed on the selection of materials
and design of systems to remove the oxygen and other gases from the anode areas
as well as liquid and vaporized metal from the cathode areas during electrolysis.
V
4-50
Refractory metal alloys of columbium, molybdenum and tantalum which have
excellent stren_h and corrosion resistant properties at temperatures in excess
of 1300°C are available, as are cobalt base alloys for use at temperatures up to
1200°C. The above materials may be used for the funnels and piping to remove
both liquid and _¢-aseous materials from the electrolysis cell, but their compatibility
with molten lunar soils must be determined.
Based on these considerations and assessments of lunar material processing, it
appears that beneficiation, melting and electrolysis of the lunar soil can all
be more efficiently conducted oa the lunar surface rather than in space. Probably
the most important reason for this is that in some LRU systems concepts,
the mass requirement for lunar derived oxygen exceeds that for mo_t other
materials by a considerable amount (see page 4-40). It would be inefficient to
transport huge quantities of unneeded materials to the SMF if the separation of the
constituents in lunar soil were to be done in that facility. Secondly, the beae-
ficiation and reduction processes which have been proposed require some deg-ree
of g-rarity which is available on the moon but would have to be artifically created
in the SMF (Ref. 12).
It is estimated that the equipment for the solar melting and electrolysis of lunar soil
will weigh 2,500 tons and require 175 MW of energy. A list of the equipment and
their masses is g2ven on page C-6 of AppendLx C.
4.4.4 MANUFACTURE OF STOCK MATERIALS
a. Aluminum Sheet and Wire
Aluminum metal is obtained by the electrolysis of molten lunar soil which had pre-
viously been partially beneficiated. Electrolysis in the lunar vacuum environment
produces vapors of the lower boiling point metals including aluminum, magnesium,
calcium, sodium, potassium, manganese and some minor constituents of lunar soil.
Aluminum and other metals as required can be essentially quantitatively recovered from
%_J
this mixture by selective electrodeposition at predetermined voltage levels. Separat-
ion can also be achieved by vacuum distillation.
4-51
The aluminum prepared in this manner is of high purity andvery low strength,
with a yield strength of approximately 30 MPa (4000psi) and a tensile strength
of 80 MPa (12000psi}. Higher strength aluminum can be produced in a variety
of ways; by cold working the unalloyed material, by alloying, by combinations of
alloying and cold working and by alloying andheat treatment. Alloying can be done
with other ingTedients available in andextractable from lunar soils, including

silicon, magnesium, manganeseand chromium. The ranges of strength properties
of equivalent standard alloys are listed in Table 4-11.
The wrought alloys listed in Table 4-11 have been cast into ingots and subsequently
hot rolled into thin sheet and plate form while the cast alloys havebeen solidified
in sandor plaster molds. The lower values represent the properties in the unheat-
treated, "notcold worked conditions. The only wrought alloys listed in Table 4-11
which can be strengthenedby heat treatment are the 6000 series alloys, which require
rapid cooling by quenchingin water from an elevated temperature followed by a low
temperature a_ng treatment. Casting alloys 356 and 360are also heat-treatable
to high strength levels.
Aluminum extracted from lunar minerals can be formed into sheet andwire by
a variety of processes which can be performed on the lunar surface or in a SbIF.
Various processes for producing aluminum and aluminum alloy sheet are listed in
Table 4-12, with brief statements of their current status and problem/risk areas.
The standard earth practice of melting aluminum in electric furnaces, casting into
ingots, followed by reheating the ingots and rolling them down into plate and sheet
form does not lend itself to lunar or SMF application. This practice is not only
wasteful of energy because of repeated heating and cooling of the metal, but also
involves a considerable amount of large andheavy operating equipment such as
electric furnaces andpower supplies, ingot molds, rolling mills andsupporting
equipment. In addition, a moderately high proportion of scrap is generated andmust
be recycled, adding further to the energy inefficiency.
4--52
rF[¸
Table 4-11. Aluminum Alloys Capable of Being Prepared From I,unar Materials.
Wrought Alloys
Earth
Yield Tensile Shear Fatigue
Equivalent Strength Strength Strength Limit
Alloy Composition M Pa M Pa M Pa M Pa
1350 99.60 + % A1 28-166 83-186 55-103 - -48
1100 99.00 + % A1 35-152 90-165 62-90 35-62
3003 1.2% Mn 41-186 110-200 76-110 48-69
6063 0.7% Mg, 0.4% Si 48-269 90-290 69-186 55-69
5050 2.5% Mg, 0.25% Cr 90-255 193-290 124-166 110-138
6101 0.5% Mg, 0.5% Si 103 138 117 62
5083 4.5% Mg, 0. 75% Mn 124-214 275-303 - -

t
cJi
¢o 5056 5.2% Mg, 0.1% Mn, 0.1% Cr 152-407 290-434 179-234 138-152
6151 0.9% Si, 0.6% Mg, 0. 25% Cr 255 303 220 76
Cast Alloy s
Earth Yield Tensile Shear Fatigue

Equivalent StrQngth Strength Strength Limit
Alloy Composition M Pa M Pa M Pa M Pa
43 5%Si 55 131 97 55
214 4.0%Mg 83 172 138 48

A320 4.0%Mg, 0.5°LSi 90 159 117 38
356 _Si, 0._Mg 138-207 172-234 138-179 52-89
360 9.5%Si, 0.5%Mg 172 324 207 131

Vapor phase deposition of aluminum has previously been recommended for the fabri-
V
cation of space structures and sheet metal for fabrication of SPS's and other products
(References 17 and 181. Hensonand Drexler (Reference18) have outlined the possible
use of both electron beam evaporation and solar roe tal vaporizer facilities for the
preparation of aluminum sheet and structures in space. The vapor phase deposition
of aluminum by electron beam evaporation is an established industrial process, with
steel sheet up to 400 mm wide being coated with 3 _m thick aluminum at the sheet
travel rate of 3 m/sec and evaporation rates up to 50 kg/hr (Reference 19).
More recently, high power axial electron beam guns have been developed capable of
achieving aluminum deposition rates of 50 pm/sec (Reference 20). These guns are
rated at 1200 kW with a maximum accelerating voltage of 50 kV. A gun of thts
capacity can deposit aluminum at a rate of 50 /_m/sec over a deposition zone 0.5 to
1.0 m long.
g
V
Extensive work has been done on developing high rate physical vapor deposition of
metals and alloys and evaluating the mechanical properties of metals so deposited.
Bunshah (Reference 21) has reviewed work performed by him and his associates as
well as by other researchers and has determined that the mechanical properties of
vapor deposited metals and alloys can be comparable to those of the same metals made
by casting, rolling and annealing.
Aluminum and aluminum al]oys such as listed in Table 4-11 can be produced in sheet
form either on the moon or in a SMF by electron beam evaporation and deposition on
an endless belt made of woven carbon fabric, high temperature plastic film or
molybdenum sheet from which the deposited aluminum sheet can be readily stripped.
A continuously fed molten pool of aluminum or aluminum alloy is impinged by a
magnetically deflected electron beam as shown in Figure 4-12 and the aluminum is
evaporated and deposited on the endless belt. Production of wide or thick sheet
aluminum will require several electron beam guns mounted abreast or in tandem. An
, 4-54
estimate of the vapor-deposited aluminum sheet manufacturing equipment is contained
in the LRU element manufacturing data sheet Appendix D page D-4, of Volume HI.
Appendix D contains a summary description of the production quantifies and rates,
manufactnring processes, types and masses of plant facilities and power required
for the production of lunar derived materials stock, parts and component assemblies
to produce one SPS per year. The appropriate pages of Appendix D will be referenced
in the following discussions of materials stock, parts manufacture and components
assembly.
Table 4-12. Processes for Manufacture of Aluminum Sheet.
Applicable to
Mfg. Process Status Moon SMF Problem/Risk Areas
Melt, cast into Current earth Yes Yes Can involve excessively
F_ ingots or continuous mfg. process massive equipment
cas_, roll into
sheet
Electron beam * Currently Yes Yes Mechanical properties

evaporation being used to and formability of
( Physical vapor coat mild steel PVD sheet.
deposition) with aluminum
Electrodeposition * Deposition from Yes Yes, Requires water or

both aqueous requires chemicals supplied
and fused salt pseudo from earth.
baths are dev- gravity
eloped pro-
cesses.
Sheet formed by Theoretical, Yes Yes, Process has not

solidification of no experimen- requires been previously
molten aluminum on tal work is pseudo attempted. Requires
partially immersed known to have gravity water or other coolant.
rotating water cooled been done.
steel drum.
* PVD and electrodeposition of aluminum can both be done continuously on

a carbon cloth substrate from which the aluminum can be readily stripped.
4-55
Electron Continuously fed
b_a- _ aluminum alloy
0un
'" material
/ _ (,,-_-_--_'-, _'Molten
"- / _ aluminum
Induction
Roll of heated crucible
sheet aluminum
Similar technique proposed for other metals
Figure 4-12. Aluminum Sheet Production

Continuous Vapor Deposition
While mechanical properties and formability of vapor deposited aluminum sheet are
listed as possible problem and risk areas, these are considered minimal since the high
vacuum environment on the moon or in space will insure the absence of oxygen, the
chief cause of aluminum embrittlement.
Aluminum wire is commercially manufactured by rolling the metal into bar, convert-
ing it into round rod and then drawing it into wire by pulling it through successively
smaller dies. As in sheet rolling, these manufacturing operations involve heavy
equipment and considerable power outlay. It is proposed to manufacture aluminum wire
by slitting vapor deposited aluminum sheet into square cross-sectioned strips which
would be subsequently pulled through one or more wire-drawing dies to the desired
diameters. The vapor deposited high purity aluminum sheet will be slit by being
passed through a two-high set of slitting rolls, and being in the dead soft, essentially
annealed condition will require little power for the slitting eperation. Since the square
cross-section strips need be only slightly larger than the final wire diameter, the wire • )
V
drawing operation will also require little power and light equipment.
4-56
The minimum wire drawing equipment can consist of a single-block, single-draft
unit incorporating a water cooled tungsten carbide die positioned in front of a lubri-
cant box, a wire-drawing block driven by an electric motor, and a stripper to remove
the coiled wire. Definition of this equipment is contained in Appendix D, page D-5.
_ :_L _ :_-_
If very long lengths of wire are needed, slit strips may be electric resistance butt
welded together prior to wire drawing to provide whatever lengths are re-
quired.
Aluminum castings may be produced by casting molten metal in sand, plaster or
permanent metal molds. Large numbers of small castings may be readily pro-
duced in automatic permanent mold machines equipped with a number of ca.ating
stations. A description of the equipment, production rate, equipment mass and power
requirements to produce aluminum and aluminum alloy castings required for the SPS
is given in Appendix D, page D- 8.
b. Iron and Steel Sheet and Plate
Metallic iron is obtained from lunar soil by two means; first by magnetic separation
of the free iron contained in the <90 /_m size fraction and secondly by either chemical
processing or electrolysis of molten regolith material. As pointed ou previously,
each 100,000 tons of lunar soil may yield 150-200 tons of free iron by magnetic
separation. Free glass particles are also recovered from the fine fraction of lunar
soil by means of electrostatic beneficiation.
After removal of the free iron and glass, the remainder of the fine fraction is then
reunited with the coaser fraction of the regolith and then processed to obtain the
various elements needed.
Iron and other metals can be produced either by the direct electrolysis of molten lunar
_2Z_ J
material, by electrolysis of metallic salt aqueous solutions, or by the AeroJet-
General carbothermic {methane) process. Iron can then be quantitatively separated
4-57
from the other metals by various means such as electroplating at a controlled voltage,
V
vacuum distillation and fractional solidification, acid solution and selective precipitation,
etc.
High purity iron has very low strength properties, but when alloyed with 0.2 to 0.5%
carbon to make steel, it has good strength and ductility and finds wide use in engineer-
ing applications. Still higher strengths along with good ductility and resistance to
brittle fracture can be achieved by further alloying with a fraction of 1% to several
percent by weight of manganese, silicon, chromium and nickel, either separately or
in various combinations of several of these elements. Many of the alloy steels can be
further strengthened by heat treatments consisting of rapid cooling from elevated tem-
peratures followed by reheating to lower temperatures, reference Table 4-13.
Except for silicon, the steel alloying elements ex2st in very limited quantities in the
lunar regolith as shown below: (Reference 22)
Element Range of Lunar Lunar Region of

Concentration Highest Concentration
C arbon 80-155 ppm basin ejecta

Manganese 0. 05-0.19_ Mare
Chromium 0. 07-0.36,,c Mare "
Nickel 130-345 ppm Highlands and basin ejecta.
Lunar carbon, hydrogen, and other gases result from the solar wind and are generally
concentrated in the finer grain size particles located on the exposed lunar surface.
These constituents are given off as gases during heating of the soil in the temperature
range of 200-900°C. Higher temperatures approaching the melting point of the soil
release additional carbon in the form of CO and CO 2. Other gases are also evolved
during the heating of lunar soil, including H2S, CH 4, SO 2, N 2, H 2, He and H20

(Reference 3). These gases may be collected from the lunar soil entry port of the
melting furnace depicted in Figure 4-11. Entrapment of these volitiles can conceptually
4-58
iHI
Table 4-13. Iron and Steel Alloys Capable of Being Made From Lunar Materials.
Yield Tensile
Strength Strength
Nominal Chemical Corporation Condition M Pa M Pa
Iron 99. 9+ Fe
Electron beam vapor 175 265
deposited.
1330 Steel 0. 30C, 1.75 Mn, 0.30 Si Rolled, annealed. 345 460
1330 Steel It tl II
Rolled. camnched and tempered 480 620
at 810°K.
2330 Steel 0.30C, 0.70Mn, 0.30 Si, 3.50Ni Roiled, annealed. 45O 620
2330 Steel I| I! I! Rolled, quenched and tempered
at 8100K. 62O 910
5130 Steel 0.30C, O. 80 Mn, 1.00 Cr, 0.30 Si Roiled, annealed. 410 620
5130 Steel I1 If I|
Roiled, quenched and tempered 1000 1170
at 8100K
t 9250 Steel 0.50C, 0.85 Mn, 2.00 Si Rolled annealed 550 790
O1
¢o 9250 Steel " " "

Rolled, oil quenched 1100 1240
and tempered at 810°K
0.40C, 1.00Mn, .25Si, 0.50Ni, 0.50Cr Rolled, annealed 620 725

1! !1 !! l!
Rolled, oil quenched and 930 1070
tempered at 810°K
410Cast 0.15C, 1.0Mn, 1.0Si, 11.5/13.5Cr Air Cooled from 1255°K 52O 760
Stainless Steel
tempered at 1030°K
Tenelon 0.10C, 1.0 Si, 18 Cr, 14.5 Mn, 0.4N Anriealed 480 860
Stainless Steel
Class 30 2.90/3.20 C, 1.70/2.10 Si, . 45/. 70Mn 210

Cast Iron
Nodular 3.20/4.10, 1.80/2.80 Si, . 45/. 80 Mn 310/480 410/690

Cast Iron
be accomplished by sealing the furnace solar heating port with a silica glass window
which is transparent to solar radiation, and by employing an intermittent lunar soil
feed into the melting furnace through a vacuum seal. Sealing the furnace in this
manner permits collection of the gases evolved from the lunar soil.
The various gases may be separated by fractional liquefaction and the carbon re-
covered from CO and CO 2 by reduction in a Bosch reactor (Reference 23). LRU
system Concept B calls for processing the minimum quantity of lunar soil, 381,000
tons. Assuming a carbon content averaging 100 ppm, it is theoretically possible to
recover 38 tons of carbon. It should be possible to achieve a recovery efficiency of
at least 50%, or 19 tons of carbon. If the 4770 tons of iron required by Concept B
were to be in the form of steel containing a carbon content of 0.30%, a total of 14.3
tons of carbon would be required to produce the steel. While the mar_n is not great,
the system concept that entails processing the minimum quantity of lunar soil still
produces enough carbon to furnish the required amount of steel. In any case, if
V
more carbon is needed, additional soil can be heated to recover trapped gases.
Manganese and chromium can be recovered from the molten lunar soil by electrolysis
and subsequent electroplating at controlled voltages or by vacuum distillation. Since
these two metals are significantly more prevalent in mare soils, the latter may be
cast into any required shape by being poured into a sand, plaster or chilled metal
mold, with gravity required to feed the metal to completely fill the mold.
Table 4--14 lists a number of processes for the manufacture of various iron and steel
products which may find an SPS application. The attendant problem and risk areas
for each process are summarized in the table.
Electron beam vapor deposition is considered the optimum process for the preparation
of iron and steel alloys in the form of sheet and thin plate material. Sheet materials of
V
good strength and ductility properties have been made by this method (References 21
4-60
Table 4-14. Processes for Manufacture of Iron & Steel Products.
I
Sheet & Plate
Applicable to Problem/_isk
Mfg. Process Status Moon SMF Areas
Melt, cast into Current Yes Yes May require excessively

ingots or Earth Mfg. massive equipment
continuous cast Processes
into bar, roll into
plate or sheet
Powder rolling, Has been Yes Yes Has width and thickness
sintering and reduced to limitations, Additional
rerolling practice facilities required to
produce metal powders
Electron Beam Currently Yes Yes Separation of PVD sheet

Vapor Deposition being used to from substrate. Control
(Physical vapor apply metal of mechanical properties
deposition) coatings of PVD material.
to substrates
E lectrodepo sition Deposition Yes Yes Requires water and acids

from aqueous requires either supplied from
solutions is a pseudo earth or synthesized
developed gravity from materials extracted
process from lunar soils.
Separation of
Electrodeposited
Tube & Pipe sheet from substrate.
Extrusion of Current Yes Yes May require excessively

Cast or Rolled earth mfg. massive equipment
billet process
Sheet spiral Process has Yes Yes No major risks

wrapped into been developed
tube and helically
welded
Sheet roll formed Current Yes Yes

_LJ No major risks
into tube and earth mfg.
straight line process
welded
4-61
Table 4--14. Processes for Manufacture of Iron & Steel Products (Continued)
Shaped Parts
Applicable to Problem/Risk
Status Moon SMF Areas
Mfg. Process
Current earth Yes Yes May require

Forgi_
excessively massive
mfg. process
equipment
Current earth Yes Yes, may No major risk

Casting
mfg. process require
pseudo
gravity
Powder Current earth Yes Yes May require

Metallurg-y mfg. process excessively massive
equipment
and 24). The 99.9+c/c iron listed in Table 4-13 was deposited in thicknesses of 0.8 to
r 2.0 mm on substrate material heated to 500°C and achieved 35c/c elongation during tensile V
testing (Reference 24). Ready separation of the vapor deposited iron from the substrate
was provided by the prior deposition of a thin layer of a refractory compound which did not
interact with the iron. Bunshah has demonstrated that at high deposition rates there is a
change in morphology from columnar to equiaxed grain structure in iron and iron-nickel
alloys vapor deposited on substrates heated to temperatures approximately one-half the
melting temperature of the deposited metal (Reference 21). An equiaxed grain structure
exhibits good ductility.
Electron beam guns of the type used for the deposition of aluminum, reference Figure 4-12
can also be used for the manufacture of iron and steel sheet. The substrate on which the
sheet material is deposited may consist of an endless belt of a high temperature alloy
with a highly oxidized surface to permit ready separation of the deposited metal which will
be stripped off the belt and coiled. The alloy constituents may be co-deposited with the
iron by means of vacuum deposition.
4-62
Details of the required production rates, manufacturing process, equipment and power
requirements for iron and steel sheet and plate ace contained in Appendix D, pages
D--6 and D--7.
The DC-DC converter transformer core is an iron base casting containing 10% silicon and
5% aluminum. This casting can be produced by means of the process and equipment
described in Appendix D, page D-9. Required production rates, equipment mass and
power requirements are also included on the referenced page.
c. Foamed Glass
The free glass particles separated from the < 90 pm fine fraction of lunar soil can be
used almost directly for the production of SPS foamed glass structural elements.
Foamed glass is made from glass particles to which small amounts of foaming agents are
added, after which the mixture is subjected to a controlled heating and annealing cycle.
Various foaming agents have been used commercially sinbe the development of foamed glass
in the early 1930's. These include such materials as water, calcium carbonate, carbon
and mixtures of sodium or calcium sulfate and carbon, iron oxide and carbon and others
(References 25 and 26). Carbon may be in the form of powdered anthracite coal, activated
charcoal or pure carbon. Demidovich (Reference 25) provided a thorough exposition of
the various processes and starting materials used in the manufacture of foa.vned glass in
the USSR, the U. S., France, Japan and Czechoslovakia.
Foamed glass is widely used commercially as an insulation material for buildings,
industrial piping, and other equipment. It has very low thermal conductivity, is moisture
resistant because of its closed glass cells and is impervious to most acids. In addition,
it is noncombustible, dimensionally stable, has good compression streng-th and can be
produced in various controlled densities. The prime producer in the United States, the
Pittsburgh Coming Corp., provides a low density product, trademarked Foamglas, made
4-63
t_ adensityof 136 kg/m 3 (8.5 Ibs/ft 3) which has a compressive strength of 0.7 MPa
(i00 psi) (Reference 27). The strength of foamed glass increases with density; at
350 kg/m 3 (21.8 Ibs/ft 3) a strength of 3 MPa (435 psi) is achieved.
The composition of commercial foamed glass is generally similar to that of soda-lime
window glass, except that a small amount of sulfates (possibly 0.2 - 0.3%) are added
to the melt to aid in foaming. The glass is melted, crushed and ball milled, with a
small amount of carbon (a few tenths of a percent by weight) added during ball milling.
The ball milling reduces the glass particles to approximately 5 _m in diameter
(specific surface area of 500 cm2/gram). The resulting mixture is placed in stainless
steel pans and heated to 700-900°C for foaming. The carbon reduces the sulfates to
CO, CO 2, H20 and H2S to provide the gases for foaming the glass. After foaming, the
glass is slowly cooled and annealed. Foamed glass may be readily cut and machined
by standard methods and equipment, and is commercially produced in the form of
block, plate or tubes. For its use in Lunar Resource Utilization, minimization or _ I
V
elimination of secondary machining operations is desirable.
According to Demidovich (Reference 25), foamed glass can be successfully produced
from a wide variety of g!asses as well as from clays, nephelines, volcanic cinders,
andesites, pumice, obsidian, syenites and other naturally occurring rocks and soils,
with the higher melting point minerals generally required higher foaming temperatures.
While window glass compositions foam at 700-800°C, foamed glass made from a
fusible clay foamed at 950-1050°C. A satisfactory foam glass was made from volcanic
cinder from the Nal'chick area Qf the USSR. The composition of this cinder was 72%
SiO 2, 11.7-14.4%A1203, l%Fe203, 1.5-3.4% CaO, 0.1-0.5%MgO, 5%K20
and 1.5 - 3.8% Na20.
Based on the above, it is highly probable that foamed glass of comparable quality can be
•made from lunar derived glass. The glass particles separated from lunar fines can
be ball milled to 5 pm diameter size or less, mixed with the small amounts (0.2 - 0.3%
4-64
by weight) of sodium sulfate and carbon necessary for foaming, and then foamed.
Sufficient quantities of sodium and sulfur exist on the moon to provide the 40-60 tons
of sodium sulfate required to manufacture the approximately 20,000 tons of foamed glass
needed for each SPS. Sodium exists in the lunar regolith in quantities ranging from 0. 2
to 0. 5% while sulfur ranges from 0.06 to 0.2% by weight. A review of the processes and
facilities required to separate these elements and react them ifto sodium sulfate is
necessary to evaluate the cost effectiveness of deriving this foaming agent from lunar
soil as compared to transporting it from earth. Likewise, the small amount of carbon
required for foaming glass may be recovered from the lunar soil where it occurs in
amounts of 80 to 150 ppm, and again the cost and effort to do this must be compared to
the cost of transportinga relatively small amount of carbon from earth.
The production of foamed glass shapes lends itself to a high degree of automation.
The manufacture of foamed glass can be performed either on the moon or in the SMF;
however, shipping glass particles from the moon to the SMF would provide for more
efficient packaging than shipping foamed glass shapes. A flow chart and sketch of
equipment for producing foamed glass are shown in Figure 4-13.
Glass feed
hopper Electric Surface j Cutting

foaming smoothino Annealing /mechanism
Foamed glass
_i:;_ furnace device furnace / Foam glass MPTS wavegulde
sheet
Foamed/ Heat resistant alloy

glass conveyor belt
Na=SO4 C
,, _ _ gO0-1100"C 500.700"C
I H FI ,_r,,FI"'
i
BENEFiClATED FOAMING ANNEALING TUBULAR

GLASS FINES BALL MILL FURNACE _ FURNACE MEMBERS CUT INTO SPS
, TO LENGTH H STRUCTURE
FABRICATION 1
L
v
_ Native lunar glass employed for making foamed glass
Figure ,t--13. Foamed Glass Production
Continuous Automated Process For Structural & Waveguide Components.
4-65
An experimental automated foamed glass production unit of the type shownin Figure
4--13was designed and constructed by the Soviet StateInstitute of Glass and was
successfully operated to produce a continuous slab of foamed glass _eference 25).
This device produced slabs 40--60mm thick, 300-400 mm wide of virtually unlimited
lengths, but, in spite of very successful pilot plant production, was not put into
commercial practice.
Since the glass particles fed onto the conveyor belt will conform to the shape of the
container t the production of tubular shapeswill require fixing a high temperature
alloy rod along the length of the foaming furnace so that the glass foams up around the
rod to form a tube. The alloy rod must be extractable from the foamed glass. Some
design and development effort must be devoted to the problem of direct production of
long tubes of foamed glass, since the huge quantity required will not permit other than
very minor secondary shaping or machining operations.
V
The joining of foamed glass structural elements is accomplished by the use of fusion
processes such as oxy-acetylene flame, laser or electron beam welding.
Free glass particles constitute a significant proportion of the lunar soil fines {Reference
3). Sixty percent by weight of lunar soil consists of particles under 90 pm in size.
The fines are very rich in glass, with individual samples varying from 10% to more
than 30% by weight of glass.
Assuming the processing of 1,000,000 tons of lunar soil, with 15% of the under 90
_m particles being free glass recoverable by beneficiation, a total of 90,000 tons of
fine glass particles can be obtained. This quantity is cbnsiderably in excess of the
total glass requirements for the S'PS, which includes 36,097 T of fused silica glass for
substrates and cover plates of the photovoltaic cell arrays and 20,074 T of foamed
glass structural elements.

V
4-66
:V
The facilityand power requirements for the production of foamed glass components
are listed in Appendix D, pages D-10 and I)-13.
d. Fused Silica Glass
The fused silica glass required for photovoltmic cell substrate and cover plates
must be hi mh purity material having excellent optical, ultraviolet resistance, and

electrical properties. The free glass particles recovered by beneficiation of lunar
soil are not suitable for these applications since they may contain large amounts
of metallic and lithic impurities and would have poor optical properties.
The starting material for these applications must be silica made by the chemical
recombination of silicon and oxygen derived from the electrolysis of lunar soil.
Various processes for the manufacture of glass sheet are listed in Table 4-15
along with statements of their current status and anticipated problem/risk areas.
Most of the current commercial glass making processes are not suitable for the
production of the very thin (50-75 _m) sheet required for photovoltaic cell
application. While smooth fiat surfaces may be obtained by fire-polishing, the
various glass rolling and drawing processes do not lend themselves to the pro-
duction of extremely thin sheet in the micron thickness range.
The most feasible process for thin silica sheet production involves vapor deposition on a
substrate. Electron-beam evaporation has been demonstrated by producing very
thin borosilicate glass films 0.5 - 50 _m thick (Ref. 28). Mackenzie (Ref. 29)
has also recommended the vapor deposition of silica to provide windows of good
optical properties. The same type of electron-beam gun used for the vapor
deposition of aluminum shown in Figure 4-12 can be used to prepare thin fused
silica sheet. Because of the high melting temperature of silica, crucibles of
magnesia (melting point 2800°C) would be used to contain the molten silica.
Experimental work is required to determine the uniformity of thickness control
and maximum sizes of 50 - 75 pm thick sheet which can be produced by vapor
deposition. An estimate of the vapor-deposited silica sheet manufacturing
equipment is contained in the LRU element data sheet shown in AppendLx D, page
D--21.
4-67
Table 4-15. Processes for Manufacture of Fused Silica Glass Sheet.
Applicable to
Mfg. Process Status Moon SPS Problem/Risk Areas
Rolling process Current comm- Yes Pseudo Not suitable for very
ercial process _may be thin glass. Requires
required moderately massive
rolling and polishing
equipment supplied
from earth.
Pilkington float Current comm- Yes Not readi- Requires moderately

process ercial process ly appli- massive equipment
cable; and special tin alloy
requires supplied from earth.
very
constant
gravity
free of
vibration.
Fourcault vertical Current comm- Yes Pseudo Product suffers from

draw process ercial process gravity waviness, drawing very
required thin sheet may pose
serious problems.
LOF-Colburn vertical- Current comm- Yes Pseudo Relatively massive

horizontal draw ercial process gravity equipment required.
process required Some drawbacks as
Fourcault process.
Pennvernon vertical Current comm- Yes Pseudo Same drawbacks as

draw process ercial process gravity Fourcault process.
required
Electron beam Current comm- Yes Yes Control of thickness

evaporation ercial process uniformity, separation
from substrate without
breakage of glass.
%.W
4-68
e. Glass Filaments
Glass filaments are made by melting glass particles in an electrically heated furnace,
pouring the molten glass into a container having a large number of fine orifices
through which the glass is continually drawn. The glass filaments may be gathered
together into a strand and wound into multifilament threads or may be individually
wound on spools. The manufacture of glass filaments is a standard, highly developed
process and no problems are foreseen in transferring this process to the lunar surface
or to a SMF.
Darwin Ho (Reference 30) has proposed a method of producing glass fibers from
mixtures of lunar anorthite, slag and calcium oxide; the latter two drived as by
products of aluminum and titanium chemical extraction from lunar soils. Ho outlined
processes involving solar furnaces placed either on the moon or in a SMF for melt-
ing glass, which is then drawn through bushings containing large numbers of fine
orifices to produce fiberglass.
Glass filaments will be employed as electrical insulation as well as to fabricate bags.
These bags are used in LRU Concept B to transfer lunar soil with the mass driver
catapult from lunar surface to the catcher at L 2. Equipment and power requirements
to produce glass filaments are listed in Appendix D, pages D-10 and D-28.
f. Production and Purification of Silicon
The production of the tremendous quantity of silicon solar cells needed for a 10 GW
SPS is well beyond both current and projected future earth based manufacturing
capabilities in 1990. An SPS of the above power level requires approximately 100
km 2 of silicon solar cells. In 1975, the United States produced approximately 500 m 2
of silicon solar cells for space and 1000 m 2 for terrestrial applications (Reference 31).
It has been estimated that U. S. industry will have the capability of producing 0.2 km 2
of silicon solar cells by 1984 and 10 km 2 by 1988 (Reference 32). It has also been
estimated that a market for approximately 4 km 2 of silicon solar cells will exist in
4-69
1986 (Reference 33). None of these estimates included consideration of an S'PS
program.
There is no shortage of silicon; it is the second most abundant element on both earth
and the moon, amounting to 27.7% and 20-22% of their crustal masses respectively.
The United States has many multimillion ton deposits containing 95--99% SiO 2. In
1977 the United States consumed silicon metal, ferroalloys and other silicon com-
pounds totalling 600,000 tons of contained silicon (Reference 34). Most of this con-
sisted of ferrosilicon alloys used in the production of ferrosilicon. Metallorgical grade
silicon metal is quite inexpensive, being priced at $0.50 per pound or less.
High purity silicon for semiconductor devices was first made by reducing silicon
tetrachloride vv-ith zinc. Other processes which were intrcduced later involved the
pyrolytic decomposition of silane and the decomposition of silicon tetrachloride.
Current production practices generally involve the hydrogen reduction of silicon
tetrachloride (SIC14) or trichlorosilane (SiHC13). Semiconductor grade silicon is
considerably more expensive than the metallurgical grade, selling for $25 or more
per pound.
If lunar derived silicon is to be used in the manufacture of SPS solar cell arrays, the
-9
silicon recovered from the electrolysis of lunar soil must be purified to a <10
impurity content. This can be done in a variety of ways, all of which require the use
of earth supplied chemicals such as hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acids, sodium
chloride, etc. Since the silicon purification processes will generally permit recovery
and recycling of most of the earth supplied chemicals, the quantity of such chemicals
as well as their make-up supply to be furnished from earth may be kept to reasonably
low amounts.
One process for purifying silicon involves the pyrolysis of silane produced by the
decomposition of dichlorosilane. The latter is produced from higher chlorosilanes
4-70
resulting from the reaction of impure silicon with hydrogen and silicon tetrachloride
in a copper catalyzed fluid bed reactor. Another process involves the sodium reduction
of silicon tetrachloride in an arc heater. Yet another process involves the de-
composition of polymerized silicon difluoride. The selection of a specific silicon
purification process depends upon the mass of earth supplied chemicals and process
equipment and power requirements. Appendix D, pages D-23 and D-24 outline the
facility and power requirements for the production of the 14,775 tons of purified
silicon required for each SPS.
The combination of a silicon purification process with vapor deposition may permit
the production of high purity silicon sheet which can be directly fabricated into solar
cell components. In this connection the silicon halide-alkali metal flame process
with CVD of the resulting silicon may be of interest. Silicon solar cells may by
this method have, however, demonstrated low efficiencies up to now.

%..,,
Conversion of silicon into ingots in Czochralski crystal pulling furnaces and slicing
them into solar cell wafers is not considered a desirable way to manufacture the huge
quantity of solar cells required for an SPS, even though this method is presently used
to manufacture all spacecraft solar cells. Wafer sawing and etching to remov_ sur-
face damage result in 50--70% material losses.
Both NASA and DOE are currently funding major research and development programs
whose objectives include preparation of low cost semiconductor grade silicon, low
cost solar cell manufacturing processes, and low cost automated processes for the
production of large solar cell arrays. Major breakthroughs remain to be achieved to
realize the above goals; however, it now appears feasible to produce high purity
silicon at a cost of $5.8/kg ($2.25-3.50/lb) in quantities of 10.00-5000 T/year
(Reference 35). The need for even lower cost semiconductor grade silicon and the
z--= -
mag_nitude of the development effort which must be made is emphasized by the re-
quirement for approximately 15,000 tons of silicon for the solar cells of each SPS.
4-71
4.4.5 MA.N'UFACTURE OF PARTS
Details regarding the required annual production rates and quantities of SPS parts,
as well as facility requirements including weights and power are contained in Appendix
D, Pages D-11 through D-16 of Volume HI. These pages also include descriptions of
the various production processes to be used in the manufacture of SPS parts.
The following section includes discussions of a number of alternative materials and
parts production processes in addition to those included in Appendix D.
a. Electrical Insulation
Conventional electrical insulation materials; i. e., plastics, rubbers, papers, etc.,
cannot be derived from lunar materials because of their organic nature. Their use
would necessitate their transport from earth. Most of the conventional organic insula-
tion materials would, in any case, be unsuitable for use in space because of volitile
losses in high vacuum, embrittlement at low temperatures, and degradation under
long-term ultraviolet irradiation.
Other types of electrical insulation materials can, however, be developed from lunar
sources. One such mater_al is fiberglass which is currently being used in electrical
insulation applications, and this is the material which has been selected for the basic
SPS electrical wire insulation. Page D-16 of Appendix D describes the braiding process
currently used for applying glass fiber insulation to electrical wiring and defines the
facility and power requirements to produce the required amount of insulated wire.
Another type of insulation material derivable from lunar sources consists of rigid
ceramic or glass insulation components. The free glass particles separate by electro-
static beneficiation of the fine fraction of lunar soil can be ground and sintered or
melted and cast into a variety of shapes needed for electrical insulation applications.
These shapes can include threaded components, slotted bodies for mounting parallel
aluminum wires, etc.
4-72
A third type of insulationmaterial which can be produced from lunar sources consists
of powdered magnesium oxide which is packed around the conducting wire and con-
tained within a tubular metal sheath. The outer metal tube can be fabricated from
thin aluminum strips that are roll-formed and welded. The powdered magnesium
oxide can be produced by reacting metallic magnesium with oxygen; both having been
produced by the electrolysis of lunar soil.
b. Klystron Housing
The Boeing SPS study defined the various parts and provided schematic sketches of
their construction. The klystron housing was described as being fabricated from 3.2mm
thick steel, which was replaced in the LRU study by aluminum or aluminum alloy sheet.
However, at the mid-term briefing on Contract NAS8-32925, "Extraterrestrial Pro-
cessing and Manufacturing of Large Space Systems," held at MIT on 30 January 1979,
it was stated that a Raytheon Company review of the Boeing design showed that the
klystron housing was too thin. Electrical noise problems would require the housing
to be si_,_nificantly thicker, making a cast part more practicable than one fabricated
from plate material.
Making this component as a casting would require an increased amount of aluminum,
but since only approximately 400 tons of aluminum sheet are presently required
annually for both the solenoid and collector housings, increasing this quantity by a
factor of 5 increases the total requirement for lunar derived aluminum by only 15%.
This will not appreciably alter the results of the current study.
4.4.6 COMPONENT ASSEMBLY
Appendix D of Volume HI lists a total of 27 items covering materials stock production,
parts manufacture and components assembly. All of the first 26 items listed on Pages
D-4 through D-27 are pertinent to each of the three LRU options. A 27th facility
requirement, outlined on Page D-28, needed for the manufacture of fiberglass bags
for mass driver payload packaging, has been defined for LRU Concept B and its
peculiar to this concept only. Source reference information is listed on each manu-
facturing data sheet.
4-73
Information on production processes and rates, facilityand power requirements
and other production data associated with SPS components assembly are contained in
Pages D-17 through D-27 of Appendix D. All data sheets pertinent to silicon refine-
ment, silicon wafer production, silica glass solar cell substrates and coverplates,
preparation of solar cell conducting circuits and other processing of silicon solar cells
and solar cell panel assembly are grouped together on Pages D-21 through D-27. These
were so grouped for a number of reasons. One is that the manufacture of solar cell
arrays comprise a major element of SPS production. Solar cell manufacturing is also
beset by the most technically challenging problems associated with the SPS concept,
since it involves the largest facilitymass, most complex accumulation of production
equipment, and requires an order of magnitude more power than all the other
facilitiesrequired to produce the lunar derived materials stocks and manufacture
SPS detailparts and components.
The cost of high purity semiconductor grade silicon represents but a s.mallpart of the
cost of completed solar cell arrays. Modules of encapsulated interconnected solar
cell wafers presently cost in the range of $700 per square meter. The modules may
consist of arrays of 50 _m thick wafers of silicon interconnected with silverplated
copper strips formed on substrates of borosilicate or fused silica glass bonded to the
silicon wafers. Cover sheets of 75 _m borosilicate or fused silicaglass are bonded
to the front faces of the wafers. The thin silicon wafers are saw cut from ingots,
polished and doped to develop the n and p faces.
The development of low-cost, high-speed, highly automated production of large solar
cell arrays is essential to an SPS program regardless of whether the manufacture is
done on earth, on the moon, or in space. Since this is not yet achievable on earth,
the solution to this problem is of paramount importance to the SPS.
The "edge-defined film growth" (EFG) method developed by Mobil Tyco Solar Energw
Corporation has been developed to the point where a multiple ribbon growth machine
4-74
can produce five 5-cm wide ribbons at a growth rate of 3 cm/min. A 100-unit facility
consisting of twin 5-ribbon machines producing 7.5 cm wide ribbons at a rate of 7.5
cm/mln could produce 2.9 x 106 m 2 of silicon solar cell ribbon. While this production
level may constitute 25% of the anticipated solar cell market in 1988, it still falls far
2
short of the approximately 100 x 106 m required for an SPS. At the present time,
EFG silicon ribbons are approximately 100_Lm thick and require etching of both surfaces
to reduce their thickness. It is expected that continued technological development over
the next decade or two will permit the growth of thin ribbons requiring little or no
surface etching to produce acceptable solar cells.
Motorola, Inc., has developed a ribbon-to-ribbon (RTR) crystal growth process using
CVD and trichlorosilane as the source gas for the polycrystalline feedstock. A future
process uses plasma deposition and silane as the source gas. Other techniques for
producing ribbon silicon include web dendrite and horizontal ribbon growth. In addition
to these attempts to mass produce silicon ribbon and sheet, the Czochralski crystal
growing process and _afer sawing and cutting processes are being improved to reduce
cost and material losses. Larger crystal growing furnaces and the growth of multiple
ingots from the same container are also being achieved. Nevertheless, considerably
more progress is needed to meet S1:_3 requirements.
Solar cell wafers or ribbon must then be doped to provide n and p surfaces, metallized
to develop conductive paths, bonded to glass substrates and coated or covered to provide
radiation shielding. The surface of the silicon may be texture-etched to optimize light
absorption or may be provided with an antireflection coating. There are numerous
process steps in fabricating solar cell arrays, some of which may be labor intensive and
involve considerable handling.
Ion implantation to develop shallow junctions in solar cells has shown considerable
promise, and a machine has been designed that could implant silicon wafers or ribbon
at a rate of 180 m2/hr (Reference 36}. High-speed annealing after doping may be
performed by electron beam or laser pulsing, with resulting epitaxial grain growth.
4-75
Current methods of electroplating and solder dipping to develop conductive paths and
interconnectors involve numerous immersion, rinsing, scrubbing, plating and drying
operations. Soldering causes problems because of oxide layers on top of the molten
baths. Many of these problems would be reduced or eliminated by performing these
operations in the high vacuua that prevail on the moon or in a SMF. Since aluminum
wire and wire mesh can be produced from lunar materials these should be considered
for use in solar cell manufacture in place of electroless nickel and precious metal
plating. Electron beam evaporation and deposition techniques are also applicable for
the preparation of the internal circuits in solar cell assemblies. Electrostatic bonding
may replace adhesive bonding in assembling solar cell coverplates and substrates.
Silicon can also be produced in amorphous thin films by vapor deposit.ion, using the
same type of electron beam guns described for aluminum and iron deposition. While
amorphous silicon solar cells made to date have shown low efficienctes, continued
development may result in improvement, particularly if epitaxial growth could be
stimulated by means of electron beam or laser pulsing.
In summary, it may be concluded that the production of silicon solar cells is a prime
determinant in the success of the SPS program. Major breakthroughs in manufacturing
technology are required to efficiently produce the huge quantity of solar cells required.
Once this capability is established, production of solar cells in a SMF using lunar-
derived silicon will be feasible. The high vacuum and clean environment in space
could positively contribute to the production of high quality silicon solar cells and
minimize defects.
The following processes have been slected for the production of solar cell quality silicon
and the production of solar cell panels. Silicon of solar cell quality willbe prepared
ff'om metallurgical grade silicon by the silane purification process. The purified
silicon will then be prepared in the form of 7.7 cm wide ribbon, 501zm thick, by the EFG
ribbon growing process, using 4283 double furnace units. Currently, EFG ribbon is
produced 100/zm in thickness, and must be etched in a sodium hydroxide solution down
4-76
to the desired 50 _m thickness. It is anticipated that this process will be developed
during the next 15-20 years to the point where 50p_m silicon ribbon can be produced
directly without requiring an etching step.
The silicon, after being cut to length, is fed through an automated facility which
implants dopants front and back, pulse anneals the implaced silicon wafers, assembles
the solar cell modules and electrostatically bonds the silica substrate and cover sheets.
The aluminum interconnections and contracts are vapor deposited on the glass sub-
strate and silicon wafers prior to assembly in the modules.
A facility to perform most of the above steps is currently under development by SPIRE
Corporation and is depicted in Figure 4-14.
GLASS , COVER
SILICON SUBSTRATE\ /PLATE
WAFER •
'! '! // //
_JJ_ Jrr.- I lllll,I J.. I -I 1_19-r'J-tti i i i I _'-,

IMPLANT PULSE
INVERT IMPLANT PULSE MOOULE . ELECTROSTATIC BONDING TEST
BACK BACK FRONT FRONT PRE-
ASSEMBLY
• Each module contains 252 solar cells

• A 10 GW SPS requires 78,388,736 modules
• Construction of one SPS per year requires 2.5 modules per sec
• 83 of production lines shown required
Figure 4-14. Solar Cell Module Production.

Automated Process Courtesy of SPIRE Corporation.
4-77
Listings of the facility and power requirements to manufacture lunar-derived materials V
stock, parts, component assemblies and solar cell panels are included on Pages D-29
through D-32 of Appendix D.
The facility mass and power estimates used in the previously described data sheets
for the basic manufacturing equipment (electron beam vapor deposition guns, casting
machines, furnaces, etc. ) have been based on data for similar earth production equip-
ment. For in-space or lunar surface use, the mass and perhaps power consumption
associated with these facilities can be reduced considerably. However, a significant
quantity of peripheral equipment and tooling is required to support each major manu-
facturing function. Application of the full earth mass to similar facilities designed
for in-space use should adequately account for these undefined peripherals.
Repetitive handling operations between manufacturing steps and most assembly operations
were assumed to be performed by industiral robots. Industrial robot quantities identified V
in Appendix D are based on assumed material handling and feed requirements for highly
automated production equipment.
A summary of the total facility mass and power requirements is given in Table 4-16.
This dramatically shows that the manufacture of silicon solar cell panels accounts for
more than 90% of both items.
4.4. 7 MATERIALS LOSSES DURING PROCESSING AND MANUFACTURE
Material quantities previously used for development of lunar resources utilization
scenarios and facility sizing requirements were nominal estimates obtained fromthe
results of Task 5.2, "Material Requirements." These material quantities were
presented in Table 3-18 and axe repeated here in Table 4-17. The nominal quantities
shown include a 26.6% margin based on SPS uncertainty analysis, but contain no provision
for material losses which occur during LRU processing and manufacturing operations.
4-78
Table 4-16. SMF Mass and Power Requirements
For Stock Production and Manufacture of SPS Parts and Assemblies.
item Mass Power

(tons) (MW)
Stock Production:
Aluminum sheet, wire & castings; steel sheet & plate; alloy castings,
glass filaments 173 20.5
Parts Mfg:
Aluminum fittings, Klystron housings & electroplated cavities; foamed 1308 3.9
glass tubes & waveguides; steel heat. pipes, fiberglass elec insulation,
fiberglass bags
Component Assy-
DC-DC converters, Klystrons, radiators, structural members, wavegulde 185 0.41
subarrays
Solar Call Panels:
Silica glass substrates & covers, purified silicon, Si ribbon, doping, apply 22,050 258.4
contacts, processing solar cells & solar cell module assembly
Total -- 23,716 283.21
% Required for solar cell panels -- 93.0 91.2
Manufacturing Material Requirements
Estimates have been made of the nonrecoverable losses of both lunar and earth supplied
materials occurring in the various stages of convening metallic and nonmetallic
elements into stock materials, parts, components and subassemblies for the SIS.
The nonrecoverable losses of lunar materials at all stages of production are low; in
the range of 0.1 to 0.2,,0 since any scrap material can readily be recovered by re-
processing. However, the nonrecoverable losses of many lunar and earth supplied
alloying elements may be much higher, in the order of 5-10%, since it will not
generally be worth the effort and expenditure of energy to recover them from scrapped
foamed glass, metallic alloys, etc.

M.J
4-79
Table 4-17. Lunar and Earth Material Requirements Summary;
Nonrecoverable Manufacturing Losses not Considered.
MAX LUNAR UTILIZATION

ALL CATEGORIES
%
MASS(T) OF TOTAL
||
Silicon 31,649 32.2

Lunar Natural Glass 20,093 20.4
material Oxygen 19,223 19.5
requirements Aluminum 11,925 12.1
Iron 5,300 5.4
Total lunar material 88,190 89.6
Earth Metals 2,316- 2.4

material Graphite 0 0
requirements composite
Various 7,874 8.0
Total earth material 10,190 10.4
Total SPS mass (T) 98,380 --
Percent of earth 100.9

baseline SPS mass
Tables D-6 through ]3-10 on Pages ]3-34 through D-38 of Appendix D in Volume IH
list the nominal and total quantities of SPS requirements, starting from the complex
assemblies and working back toward the stock materials required to fabricate the
parts and components going into assemblies. The total amount of material required
for the construction of an SPS, considering all of the unrecoverable losses, is obtained
from the above pages and is summarized in Table 4-18.
The following assumptions have been made in deriving the material quantities shown
in Table 4-18. Native glass is used for the production of the foamed glass structural
elements, the MPTS waveguides and fiberglass electrical insulation. The metallurgi-
cal grade silicon is used as follows:

V
4-8O
lo
17,755 tons are converted to 15,092 tons of solar cell grade silicon by the
silane process with 85,% efficiency.
.
16,948 tons are reacted with 19,350 tons of oxygen to produce 36,281 tons
of silica glass for substrates and cover plates of solar cells.
o
126 tons are used as an alloy constituent in the sendust transformer core
castings. These are made from an alloy of 85_ iron, 10% silicon, and 5%
aluminum.
Table 4-18. Summary of SPS Material Requirements

Including Nonrecoverable Losses.
Lunar Derived Materials Tons

n
Native Glass 34,685
Metallurgical Grade Silicon 34,829

Aluminum 12,275
Iron 4,460
Oxygen 19,369
Alloying El_ments 33
TOTAL 105,651
Earth Derived Materials
Alloying Elements, Plastics, Etc. !2_491

GRA_ND TOTAL 118,142
Aluminum and aluminum alloys in the form of sheet are used in many applications; for
end fittings on foamed glass structural elements, radiators, piping, klystron housings
and electrical conductors. They are also employed in the form of castings for klystron
cavities, nodes for structural element connectors and as a constituent of the sendust
transformer core castings. Aluminum wire is required for many electrical applications,
and vapor deposited aluminum is used in waveguides and as electrical contacts in solar
cell panels.
E_
Iron is used as a major constituent of sendust castings, as klystron solenoid poles and
V
in the stainless steel alloy heat pipes. Small amounts of lunar-derived silicon and
magnesium are employed as alloying elements.
4-81
Comparison of the material requirements data in Table 4-17 and 4-18 shows an increase =
V
=
of 19.8% in lunar material requirements, and an increase of 22.6% in earth material
requirements. Although unrecoverable materials are responsible for some of this
increase, revised foamed glass requirements and other material quantity changes in
the completed LRU solar power satellite are major contributors. The updated SPS
mass for construction with lunar materials is 112, 223 T, with 101,922 T manufactured
from lunar material and 10,301 T obtained from earth. This revised SPS mass esti-
mate for construction with lunar materials is shown in Table 4-19.
Table 4-19. Revised SPS Mass Estimate for Construction

With Lunar Materials.
Mass (Tons}
Total Lunar Earth
Photovoltaic blankets 54, 880 51,570 3,310
Primary structure 358
secondary structure 28,001 27,643
Sheet conductors and 0

cable and wire conductors 4,041 4,041
Klystron module 20,966 15, 508 5,458

DC-DC Converter 4,33s 3,16o
112,223 I01,922 i0,30l
90.8% 9.2%
Lunar Material Requirements
Estimates have also been made of the efficiency of element recovery from lunar soil.
The recovery of each element was arbitrarily taken as 50% for silicon, oxygen,
aluminum and iron. This value was chosen because of the kno_ resistance to
etectroreductlon of SIO2, the major oxide constituent of lunar regolith.
As the basis f_r estimating the amounts of lunar soil to be processed, the composition of
file lunar highlands regolith was assumed to be the following (Reference 37):
oxygen - 44.6% aluminum - 13.3%
silicon - 21.0% iron - 4.9%
It was further assumed that the lunar soil consists of approximately 40% by weight of fine
particles up to 90 _m in size of which 30% consists of glass in both free form and as a
constituent of agglutinates.
4- 82
Table 4-20 contains an estimate of the total quantity of lunar soll which must be pro-
cessed to supply the materials required for SPS production. The primary SPS constitu-
ents obtained from lunar soild are native glass and metallurgical grade silicon as
indicated by Table 4-18o
Table 4-20. Stock Material Requirements for SPS

Obtained from Lunar Resources.
Product Nominal * Origin: Unrecoverable

or Quantity Lunar (L), Loss Factor Total Quantity
Component (T/Yr) Earth (E) (Percent) (T/Yr)
Native glass 34,685 Lunar soil (L) 0. 108 (Note 1) 321,157
Metallurgical 34,829 Lunar soil (L) .50 331,705

grade silicon
Aluminum 12,275 Lunar soil (L) .50 184, 586
Iron 4,460 Lunar soil (L) .50 182,041
Oxygen 19,369 Lunar soil (L) .50 86,857
NOTE I: Particle < 90 /_m in size constitute_-40_cby weight of the

lunar regolith. It is estimated that 30_ of this fine fraction
is glass, either in free-form or as a constituent of aggluti-
nates. After ball milling to <5 _m particle size, glass is
90c70recoverable by electrostatic beneficiation.
Constitution of lunar highland soil: Silicon 21.0%

Aluminum 13.3_
Iron 4.9%
Oxygen 44.6%
In the case of lunar-drlved glass required for the production of foamed glass structural
element and .M_PTS waveguldes, it is estimated that electrostatic beneflciation would
readily permit a 90_,vrecovery of lunar glass after the less-than-90/zm-size fraction
of lunar soll is ball-milled to under 5 /_m particle size.
As indicated in Table 4-20, the extraction of 34,685 tons of native glass from 321,157
tons of lunar soil leaves a remainder of 286,472 tons from which various other materials
F
can be extracted. Metallurgical grade silicon requires the processing of more lunar soil
than any of the other materials required for the SPS; a total of 331,705 tons. With the
286,472 tons remaining after removal of glass, an additional 45,233 tons of lunar soil
4-83
must be mined for the extraction of silicon, making a total of 366,390 tons of lunar
soil to be processed.
The above estimates are based on the premise that the checmical composition of lunar
glass is similar to that of the lithic components. This may not be strictly true since
lunar glasses have been found to have widely varying compositions, some much higher
in s illca and others higher in magnesia than the average Hthic constituents (Reference
3). The very high silica glasses, however, are reported to be rare, consisting of <1%
by weight of material.
The lunar soil req_rements shown in Table 4-20 have been calculated based on SPS
material requirements, and do not include consideration of transfer vehicle propellant
requirements (oxygen and perhaps aluminum) which must also be derived from lunar
soil. As e.xplained in Section 4, the originally estimated total lunar material require-
ment for LRU systems Concept B (348,200 T) was dependent on silicon requirements,
and sufficient additional oxygen was available to satisfy propellant needs. The revised
mining requirement of 366,390T corresponds to a 5.2% increase over that previously
identified for Concept B. A similar modest increase in the previously reported mined
Q
material needs for LRU Concepts C and D also results (See Section 4.7).
4.4.8 EARTH MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS
The assumption is made that all water and gases other than oxygen required in the
production of lunar materials, stock forms, SPS parts and components will be supplied
from earth. This may not be completely true, since more detailed exploration of the
moon may disclose concentrated sources of water, ice and other trapped volatiles
(Reference 38). Hydrogen, water, helium, nitrogen, methane, CO and CO2 are released
upon crushing or heating of lunar soils and rocks (Reference 3), with several of the
elemental constituents present in amounts as high as 100 parts-per-million. Solar
heating and melting of lunar soil in a confined volume may well permit the collection
and separation of volatile constituents, but this has not been considered in this study.
4-84
Earth materials are required for space processing in addition to various earth manu-
factured components which are directly assembled into SPS components and fabricated
elements. Previous efforts to define manufacturing facilityrequirements concentrated
on the equipment needed and these estimates did not include an allowance for the heat
transfer loop which removes process heat at the source and transfers this energy to
the space radiator loop for dissipation, or chemicals needed for other processing
operations. Tables 4-21, 4-22, and 4-23 identifythese material requirements which
must be satisfiedusing earth resources. Process heat removal can be accomplished
with coldplate conductors, air, water, and other fluids and gasses. Specific emphasis
has been placed on defining requirements for water, since most earth manufacturing
operations utilize large quantities of H20 for cooling, washing, and other purposes.
The cooling water requirements, Table 4-21, for stock and parts manufacturing and
component assembly were estimated based on the following assumptions: (1) the cooling
water is circulated through the manufacturing equipment and into a heat exchanger where
it is cooled by a fluid circulating through the space radiators, (2) the equipment cooling
water w-ill have a AT of 70°C; inlet temperature of 10°C, and outlet temperature of
80°C, (3) the cooling water circulation cycle takes one-half hour from equipment to
heat exchanger and back to the manufacturing equipment, (4) the heat exchanger
efficiency is 75%.
The thermal efficiencies of the various materials and parts manufacturing and assembly
processes were estimated; in some cases based on current processes or scale-up of
laboratory processes. Cooling water requirements amount to 555 tons, almost 65% of
which is required in the purification of silicon to solar cell quality, growing silicon
solar cell ribbon material and processing it to the point where it is ready to be
assembled into solar cell modules. The requirements of water for use in manufacturing
sand castings, for electroplating and for the production of foamed glass components are
also listed in Table 4-21. Water is essential to the ball milling and foaming of foamed
glass, and approximately 0. 570 by weight remains chemically bonded in the foamed glass.
4-85
Table 4-21. Cooling Water Requirements.
V
Estimated
Process
Cooling Water
Efficiency Requirement -
Item # Material or Process % i| Metric Tons
1 Aluminum Sheet production 70 21.6

2 Aluminum Wire production 60 0.1
3 Steel Sheet production 7O 23.6
4 Iron Sheet for klystron solenoid 7O 3.0
5 Aluminum Castings - klystron cavity 5O 0.52
6 Sendust castings 5O 3.07, Note #I
7 Glass filaments 5O 0.03
8 Alum. End Fittings - parts mfg 5O 0.15
9 Alum. klystron housings - parts mfg 5O 0.32
10 Cu plate A1 klystron cavity m -, Note #2
11 Foamed glass components 4O 9.83, Note #3
12 A1 deposition on MPTS waveguides 7O 1.77
13 Steel heat pipes, parts mfg 6O 0.35
14 Glass fiber electrical insulation 5O 1.7
15 DC-DC Converter 6O 0.1
16 Klystron assembly 6O 0.59
17 DC-DC Converter radiator assy 6O 0.08
18 Klystron radiator 60 0.1
19 Structural member assy 6O 0.38
20 MPTS Waveguide Subarray Assy 6O 0.1
21 Silica glass - covers & substrates 50 74. 4
t
22 A1 deposition on solar cell substate 70 2.95

23 Si refining to PPB level 70 47. 56
24 Silicon solar cells, EFG process 80 236. 76
25 Cut EFG ribbon, dope, contacts, anneal 80 75. 51
26 Solar cell module assy 80 47. 54
27 Fiberglass bags - make _lass & f_b bags 50 3. 14
Total cooling water requirement 555. 25 tons
Note #1 - Sand molds for sendust casting require annual supply of 4.5 tons of water
to temper molding sand.
Note .#2 - Cu plating requires 27 tons of water for plating and rinsing baths and 2.7
tons annual resupply.
Note #3 - Foamed glass production requires an initial supply of 400 tons of water,
and an annual resupply of 219 tons of water, 202 tons of sodium sulfate
and 189 tons of carbon.
4-86
i \
Requirements for other process fluids are listed in Table 4-22. The requirements
for hydrogen (2. ST) and hydrochloric acid (265T) to produce purified silicon by the
silane process are predicated upon essentially complete recovery and recycling of the
reactants three times per day. A slower rate will require correspondingly more of
these materials. A small quantity of helium (1.5T) is employed as a heat transfer
medium during silicon ribbon growth by the EFG process. In addition to working fluids,
the silane process for silicon purification will require approximately 0.1 ton of e_rth
supplied copper to serve as a catalyst during the reaction between metallurgical grade
silicon, hydrogen and silicon tetrachloride in a fluidized bed reactor.
Table 4-22. Material Requirements Other Than Water.
Process Fluid 'Quantitff Tons Use of Fluid

Growing silicon ribbon by Helium 1.5 Heat transfer medium during
EFG Process
ribbon growth
Silane process for purifi- Hydroger 2.5 For reaction with metallurgical grade
cation of silicon from
silicon and SiC14 to produce
metallurgical grade
HSiC13
TV TT T_
Hydro- 275 For reaction with metallurgical
chloric
grade silicon to produce SiC14
acid
Requirements for Materials Other Th__u Fluids
Miscellaneous earth-supplied materials other than fluids will be required fo_ a number
of the materials and parts manufacturing and assembly operations. Table 4-23 lists
those which have been identified.
Total Earth Materials Requirements
The total earth supplied materials are summarized in Table 4-24. The bulk of them
consist of electrical components and special metal and plastic parts made largely of
materials that are essentially unavailable on the moon or else require fabrication
k.J
facilities impracticable to send to the moon or the SMF.
4-87
V
Table 4-23. Requirements for Materials Other Than Fluids.
Quantity
lVIaterial Tons/Year Use
Copper 9O Electroplating klystron cavities and catalyst

for silane silicon purification process
Brazing alloys 33.2 Brazing steel heat pipes to aluminum radiator
Brazing flux 60 If t? I_ Y_ If I?
Sodium sulfate 202 Foaming agent for foamed glass

Carbon 189 IT T! ?T ?T _
Silane plastic 45 Surface coating for fiberglass filaments

Phosphoru s, 0.1 Dopants for silicon solar cells
Arsenic or boron
Table 4-24. Earth Material Requirements for SPS Production.

V
Material Requirement Initial Annual

(1") (1")
Various SPS components - plastics, electronics 12,934 f 10,347

& metal parts
Special metal parts & coatings 1,305.2 1,305.2
Water for SMF cooling 555.2 55.5
Water for production of materials 431.5 226.2
Hydrochloric acid for silicon refining 275 91.5
Sodium sulfate for foamed glass 2O7 202
Carbon for foamed glass 189 189
Other 144.1 74.6
Total 16,036 12,491
4-88
iF-
4. S LRU INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT DEFINITION
Lunar Resource Utilization concept support elements such as lunar and space
bases are responsible for a significant percentage of every LRU concept's develop-
ment, start-up (transportation) and operating costs. This task identifies the
infra-structure requirements for alternative LRU concept s, selects design concepts,
and determines their costs. Fortunately, conceptual designs and cost data already
exist for most of the infrastructure elements needed. This existing information
will be selectively employed, along with some new data developed as part of this
study, to define the required infrastructure elements. Cost data is in Section S.
The best all-encompassing definition of infrastructure is obtained by exclusion;
i. e., infrastructure includes every lunar surface or in-space element that is not
part of the material processing/fabrication system or the transportation system.
The major elements required for lunar resource utilization are listed in Figure 4-15
under three headings: propellant depots, habitats, and other support equipment.
Obviously a great many implementation options exist for each major element.
Most of these infrastructures have been studied extensively by NASA and their major
aerospace contractors. The following subsections address each element grouping
presented in Figure 4-15 to identify those representative infrastructure elements
which have been selected/defined for the purposes of this study.
4.5.1 Propellant Depots - These facilities are probably required at every LRU
systems concept logistic center where cargo and/or personnel must be transferred
to a different transportation vehicle. For the earth baseline (Systems Concept A) the
only depot requirement is at LEO, although the addition of a small GEO depot for
POTV return trip propellant supply might be beneficial. The lunar resource
utilization options all require LH2/LO 2 propellant supplies for POTV refueling at
LEO, LLO, and the space construction facility. These POTV resupply depots will
be similar, except storage requirements will vary as a function of location and

%J
system concept.
4-89
Habitats Propellant Depots Powerplants
LEO logistics station

LLO shelter LEO depot (A, LO 2, LH2)
Lunar base
LLO depot (LO2, LH2) SMF (photovoltaic)
Lunar outputs Lunar base (LO2)
Lunar base (nuclear
SMF living quarters SMF depot (LO2, LH2) or photovoltaic)
GEO maintenance facility GEO depot (LO2, LH2)
Figure 4-15. Infrastructure Elements.
The propellant requirements for COTV's and LTV's are extremely dependent on
systems concept vehicle designs, the lunar material processing location, and
unique depot locatioris. Concepts A through D all employ an ion electric COTV. For
the earth baseline COTV, liquid argon is used as propellant. Argon could also
be used as COTV propellant in LRU Concepts B, C and D, but a more suitable propell-
ant may be oxygen, which can be obtained from lunar resources.
Transportation options originally considered for systems Concept B had unique propellant
requirements due to the mass driver reaction engine _IDRE) and mass catcher rotary
pellet launcher (RPL). MDRE and RPL propellant can theoretically consist of almost any
excess mass which is convenient to the depot location. Suggestions for I_IDRE propellant
include ground-up external tanks in LEO, lunar soil at L 2, and processing slag at the SMF.
An alternative for I_IDRE use at all these locations is lunar derived oxygen. Oxygen is
± 2
V
4-90
potentially superior since it evaporates into a harmless gas after ejection, rather
than remaining solid and constituting a potential hazard as do _:he other candidate
materials. The mass catcher's RPL could use fused lunar soil, processing slag manu-
factured into pellets by sintering {heat and pressure), or use solid oxygen pellets.
Selection of the ion electric COTV instead of MDRE/RPL deleted this unique propellant
requirement.
Lunar Transfer Vehicles (LTV) must be chemically propelled to generate sufficient
thrust to counteract lunar g-rarity. All systems concepts except D utilize LH2/LO 2
propelled LTV's for personnel transfer between LLO and the lunar surface.
Depot requirements depend on the degree of lunar surface material processing
activities. If surface processing is performed (concepts C and D), an oxygen
depot is needed at the lunar base. Concept B has no (or very limited) lunar
processing, and consequently no surface depot requirement. Cargo transfer from
the lurer surface also exhibits concept dependent propellant depot needs. Concept
B employs the mass driver catapult which uses electrical energy (no reaction mass).
Concept C uses conventional LH2/LO 2 cargo rockets which obtain fuel from the LLO
depot. Concept D uses a chemical rocket fuel derived from lunar materials which
must be produced and stored on the lunar surface. This fuel may consist of either
finely ground metals (A1, Ca, Fe, Mg, Ti), or cast grains of these same materials
plus perhaps some earth-exported or lunar-derived binder. Initial work has
concluded that powdered aluminum is probably the best choice.
These depot propellant storage considerations are summarized by location and systems
concept in Table 4-25.
LEO Depot Definitiont LH2/LO 2 Propellants_
Propellant depot sizing is dependent on both the payload capability of propellant
delivery vehicles and the refueling requirements of user vehicles. Unfortunately,
all the orbital transfer vehicles, both cargo and personnel, have stage and fleet sizing
requirements which depend on the LRU material requirements threshold, which is not
yet known. One vehicle which can be used as a depot sizing starting point, however,
is the earth launch vehicle employed to deliver cargo into low earth orbit.
4-91
Table 4-25. Depot Propellants,
PROPELLANT PROPELLANTS REQUIRED .-- SYSTEMS CONCEPT

DEPOT
LOCATION A B C D
LEO LH21LO2 LH2/LO2 LH2/LO2 LH2/LO2

Argon
LLO LH21LO2 LH21LO2 LH2/LO2
Lunar base LO2 AI/LO2
SMF LH21LO2 LH21LO2 LH2/LO2
May be combined
GEO LH2/LO2 LH2/LO2 LH2/LO2
The earth baseline Concept A, uses 391 HLLV flights per year to supply materials
for a steady state production rate of one 10 GW SPS per year. This corresponds to an
earth launched payload of 454 T/day. The various LRU systems concepts evaluated
(see Section 4.2), indicate that earth material requirements for any of these concepts
are only 10 to 20 percent of the earth baseline at the recommended 90% lunar resource
utilization level. At 20 percent EMR, only 91 T/day are needed from earth to
construct one 10 GW SPS per year. The launch system which best satisfies this
payload capability, allows g-rowth for higher material thresholds (more than one
SPS/year), and has a fully reusable booster to reduce launch costs is the Shuttle
4-92
E
derived vehicle (SDV). The cargo version of SDV has a payload capability of
approximately 200 T, requiring only one launch every two days to meet the 1 SPS/
year requirement. This vehicle will be used for LEO propellant depot sizing.
Initially, all propellant for establishing the required space and lunar facilities must
be delivered from earth using the SDV cargo version. After these facilities are emplaced
and operating it may be feasible and cost effective to obtain all the oxygen required for
in space operations from the moon. If this occurs, only hydrogen propellant will be
subsequently required from earth. Thus the propellant supply modules used for the
LEO depot must be compatible with SDV payload capability and have the flexibility
required to initially supply POTV LH2/LO 2 and COTV argon (or oxygen), followed
exclusively by LH 2 to be used as POTV fuel. The best method of accomplishing this
is via independent SDV delivery of LH 2 and LO 2 (or argon). Preliminary mass estimates
of independent propellant delivery modules are contained in Table 4-26. The hydrogen
delivery module configuration was dimensionally constrained for equivalence with
the Shuttle external LH 2 tank, for which tooling exists. This results in an additional
payload capability of 62 T which can be accommodated within the nose fairing along
with each LH 2 delivery module.
Table 4-26. SDV Launched Propellant Delivery Modules.

Y
Characteristic Propellant
LO 2 LA LH 2
Tank Volume ( rn_) 175 143 i, 523
Tank Diameter (m) 4.4 4.4 8.4
Tank Length (m) 12.5 I0.4 29.4
Tank Mass (T) 2.6 2.6 22.1
Fairing & Support

Structure Mass (T) 7.9 7.9 14.2
Propellant Mass (T) 190.5 190.5 102.7
Total Mass (T) 200.0 200.0 139.0

--=
4-93
Propellant depot preliminary sizing has been based on data available in the "Orbital
Propellant Handling and Storage Systems for Large Space Programs" study report
(Reference 39). This study was performed by Convair for NASA JSC under contract
(NAS9-15305) to conceptually design and evaluate large hydrogen, oxygen, and argon
storage depots in LEO. Based on the information generated by this study we have
selected the LEO depot size closest to 2,268 T (5 M lb) propellant capacity with a
6:1 LO2/LH 2 mixture ratio. This results in a depot with 10 oxygen modules,
3 hydrogen modules, and a total propellar_ capacity of 2,213 T. Reliquefaction
equipment is included as part of the depot to eliminate propellant boil-off losses.
Boiloff rates were based or, Reference 39 data for 60 and 30 layers of superinsulation
on the LI-I2 and LO 2 storage modules respectively. Depot subsystem mass estimates
(excluding propellant modules) are given in Table 4-27. The overall LEO propellant
depot characteristics are shown in the LRU element data sheet of Figure 4-16.
Table 4- 27. LEO Depot !%Iass Estimate.

Mass (T)
Basic Platform Structure = 13.6
V
Propellant Xfer Plumbing = 1.8
ACS and Avionics = 0.8
Reliquefaction Equipment = 1.4
Solar Array Power Supply = 0.7
Reliquefaction Radiators = 1.4
10% Contingency = 2.0
TOTAL MASS (T) = 21.7
Other _Drbital LH2/LO 2 Depots
The configuration of LH2/LO 2 propellant depots located in LLO and at the space
construction base or SMF can be similar to the LEO depot of Figure 4-16. If
there are any significant differences, they will probably involve the capacity and
configuration of the propellant storage modules. The design of LEO depot
propellant modules is constrained by the SDV payload capability and the high g
forces needed to leave earth. In-space transport of propellant modules is not
4-94
Figure 4-16.
LRU ELEMENT DATA SHEET
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Element Definition LH2/LO 2 Propellant Depot in
Transportation LEO Incl. Reliquefaction

-t Material Processing
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Propellant Modules Sized for SDV
Delivery (200 T Payload Capability)
CREW & MAINTENANCE

Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) Scaling Relatio n_hips
PROVISIONS (OPTIONAL)
Approximately
linear, 4400 T storage
PC-",- capacity requires
./
-111mr 2 X facilitysize.
When oxygen is lunar

supplied, the 10 earth
modules can be re-
placed with 6 ET size
LH 2 tanks for storing
_LO 2 D LH either LH 2 or LO 2
60
LO 2
r1
L ....
Z:DLO 2 :_ :,l,'l.":,::[: ', i

SO ..... "7"
T_
AR!_ ,_ 55 m --.
PH%'SICAL CHARACTERISTICS: 3
Total Volume 6319 m Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 114 T Array Area 667 m z
Consumable Wt. N/A Radiator Area 174 m 2 SDV
Gross Weight 2._27 T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput 17 T/hr/POTV Initial LEO _ COT\"
Shuttle
Storage Cap. 2213 T Final LEO LT\:
PER FORMANCE CHARACTER;

Power Req'd 100 KW Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level" N/A Efficiency N/A Primary
Specific Impulse 4.2 kN-s/k_ (ACS) Consumables 1% Stored Prop. Suppoz-t
Acceleration N/A Waste Heat N/A
Supem'isor:-
Payload Cap. N/A Flow Rates 19 kg/hr Venting Ground
Transfer Time N/A Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) Orbital propellant handling & storage systems for large space
pro_Tams NAS9-15305 CARD-ASP-78-001 Updated per Bock's AIAA Tech Paper for
Reliquefaction Sizing.
Prepared by E.H. Bock Reviewed by
4--95
subject to either of these limitations. COTV's will operate at very low thrust to
weight ratios with very large payloads. Therefore, the use of SDVpropellant delivery
modules for subsequentpropellant delivery to LLO or SMF would be inefficient.
Lightweight superinsulated rigid tanks would obviously be superior for in-space
transport applications, except they must either be delivered from earth empty or
constructed in space. A third possibility involves the use of lightweight superinsulated
flexible propellant containers. These flexible containers could be delivered from earth
in a high density collapsed configuration, and be filled (i. e., expanded) on orbit from
the LEO depot. Further, these flexible propellant containers could be used both as
propellant storage/transport modules and as COTV propellant tanks. Their flexible
configuration would provide positive propellant control and orientation functions by
being purposely contracted as propellant is withdrawn. Only two disadvantages to
the flexible container approach are evident; 1) protection from meteoroid damage
(excessive leakage) and 2) suitable material flexibility at cryogenic temperatures.
If these t_vo concerns are solvable, flexible containers probably constitute the best
approach for propellant transport in space.

J
A sketch of one possible flexible container configuration is shown in Fi_o-ure 4-17.
The propellant containment membrane is constructed of a high strength fiber reinforced
plastic, and is configured to readily fold into a more compact cylindez, as propellant
is removed. Container compaction and propellant removal is accomplished by a
cylindrical net which mechanically squeezes the containment membrane. The
propellant outlet and other disconnects for propellant boiloff venting, reliquefied
propellant recharge, and power are housed in a panel/docking interface attached to
the container services standpipe. The superinsulation system surrounds the bag
and squeeze net, and after initial deployment, remains in its fully deployed position
independent of the propellant quantity contained in the membrane. Preliminary
calculations indicate that a propellant container of this type _ith a volume equal
to the ET hydrogen tank, has approximately 1/3 the mass. Its initial dry delivery
volume is less than 1/10 that of the rigid ET hydrogen tank.
4-96
v
ELECTRICAL DRIVE MOTOR
p.....?:
I: ¸ :
/"
AND DOCKING PROBE ..-"

///" /
CONTAINER SHOWN
FULLY CONTRACTED
SUITABLE FOR ]
EARTH LAUNCH /
SU'RROUN'DING INSULATION OMITTED FOR CLARITY LN

BOTH SKETCHES
Figure 4-17. Flexible container configuration.

4-97
All reliquefaction equipment and container power (for low g thermodynamic vent and
squeeze mechanism) is assumed to be supplied by the support facility, either the
depot during storage or the COTV during transport.
The LLO propellant depot configuration will also be dependent on the payload capability
of the lunar cargo transfer vehicle and the LO 2 transport module design. If oxygen
produced on the lunar surface is to be used as POTV oxidizer and Ion electric COTV
propellant, it must be lifted to the LLO propellant depot. Although lunar gravity is
only 1/6 g, rigid containers will be required for this relatively high thrust transfer.
These containers must either be brought from earth or manufactured in space.
One interesting possibility is to use the SDV LO 2 propellant transport modules
for the lunar application. These LO 2 modules wili no longer be needed in LEO once
lunar derived oxygen becomes available, since previously emptied LH 2 modules

or flexible containers can then be used for LEO oxygen storage. If we i_nore the
logistics problems involved with getting these LO 2 modules to the moon, they appear
to be an excellent choice. Preliminary CLTV sizing indicates that two of these 200 T
modules could be conveniently lifted into LLO at one time. After their propellants
are transferred via the depot to OTV's or flexible container delivery modules, the
rigid LO 2 transport modules can be brought back to the lunar surface for reuse.
Mass estimating procedures for LH2/LO 2 depots must be available which are
independent of stored propellant mixture ratio. Based on the proposed LEO depot
configuration and the use of rigid tanks or flexible propellant storage containers,
the following equations may be used to obtain LH2/LO 2 depot mass.
MDepot = MLH2 Storage Equip. + MLO 2 Storage Equip.
W
MDepot " KLH2 Depot WLH2 Prop + KLO2 Depot LO 2 Prop
Capacity Capacity
The constant values (K) are dependent on the type of stroage container assumed.
Table 4-28 lists constants for the earth launched oxygen and ET hydrogen tanks
4-98
F
described in Table 4-26 plus large flexible containers of common design used for
in-space transfer and storage of either propellant.
Table 4-28. Depot Sizing Constants.
Storage Configuration KLH2 Depot KLO2. Depot
(TDepot/TLH2 ) ( T Depot/T LO 2
Rigid Storage Tanks Sized

for SDV Delivery 0.264 0. 0212
Flexible Containers for in-

Space Use (Volume Equivalent 0. 126 O. 0079
to ET LH 2 Tank)
A slight improvement (approximately 10% lower) in Table 4-28 K values is obtained
for remote depot locations such as GEO, due to the availability of almost continuous
sunlight (photovoltaic power supply) for boiloff reliquefaction.
Lunar Surface Oxygen Liquefaction Facility
The lunar surface propellant facility for systems Concepts C and D must liquefy
gasseous oxygen produced by anorthite processing so that it can be easily transported
and stored in the various orbiting depots. Liquefaction equipment sizing has been
based on preliminary material requirements analyses of Section 4.2, which indicates
oxygen propellant requirements of ~2.5 times the total SPS mass. For a construction
rate of one 10 GW SPS per year, approximately 250,000 T/yr of LO 2 is needed.
Depending on the anorthite processing technique selected, liquefaction location, and
the power supply source, this corresponds to liquefaction rates of 60 T/hr during the
lunar day, or 28.6 T/hr continuously. Preliminary definition of this liquefaction
equipment (not including the power supply) is contained in Table 4-29.
This equipment estimate was derived from data in the NAS9-19305 propellant
handling study by employing the following assumptions.
4-99
Table 4-29. Lunar oxygenliquefaction equipment mass estimate.
Continuous Sunlit
Operation Operation
OxygenLiquefaction Rate (T/hr) 28.6 60
Power Required (MW) 24 50
Equipment Mass Estimate (T) 1,080 2,270
Liquefaction Equipment (185.5) (390.1)
Heat Exchangers & Pumps (5.9) (12.4)
Radiator and Transport Fluid (815.3) (1,714.2)
Avionics Controls Etc. (6.7) (13.3)

Structural Enclosure & EC/Access (66.6) ( 140.o)
i) R_diator equipment mass required for thermal energy dissipation on the lunar
surface will be approximately twice that needed in low earth orbit. This
mass increase is primarily due to the larger radiator area required to account
for the hi_o_aer effective sink temperature and lunar surface view factor.
2) The liquefaction equipment, heat exchangers, and pumps are enclosed by a
pressure shell to protect the equipment and allow shirtsleeve maintenance.
Pressurizable equipment tunnels have also been provided for maintenance
access to the radiator manifolds and storage module propellant transfer lines.
A sketch of the lunar surface LO 2 depot is included in the LRU element data sheet
of Figure 4-18. An ET hydrogen tank has been used as a convenient housing for
the liquefaction equipment. An airlock and environmental control module are attached
to it to provide personnel access and life support. The radiator assembly is oriented
east/west and has a small sun shield to prevent direct illumination during lunar day
operation. The equipment housing cylinder and access tunnels are all covered with
2 meters of lunar soil to provide thermal insulation and cosmic ray protection for
maintenance personnel.
V
4-100
Figure 4-18.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
_== ......
Material Processing Element Definition Lunar Surface Oxygen Liquefaction
Transportation ,Facility
Infrastructure Produce 28.6 T LO 2 per hour -Power

Sizing Assumptions
Supply Equipment not Included
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) Scaling Re!ationshi._s
Approximately
8.4 m Dia
linear, 60 T/hr
29.4 m Long
production rate depot
has mass of 2,270 T.
3 km
2.5 m Din
J Equip. Tunnel
ET LH_ Tank
i ,
ContainZlng
Liquefaction
Superinsulated Machinery -
| LO 2 Storage and Pressurized for
Transfer Modules Maintenanc e
J
2.6 T each
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume I, 523 m 3 Delivery X'ehCc!e

Inert Wei_t 1,080 T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. N/A Radiator Area 87_890 mz SDV
Gross Weight 1,080 T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput 28.6 T/hr Initial LEO _ COT\"
Shuttle
Storage Cap. 190.5 T/Module Final Lunar Surface LTV
PER FORMANCE CHARACTER : 24 _V

Power Req'd
Thrust Level" N/A Efficiency •O. 3 kW hr/lb LO 2
Consumables N/A
Specific Impulse N/A
Acceleration N/A Waste Heat N/A
Flow Rates 28.6 T/hr
Payload Cap. N/A
Transfer Time N/A 250,000 T/yr
Useful output
Data Source(s) Orbital Propellant Handling & Storage Systems for Large Space
Programs NAS9-15305 CASD-ASP-78-001
E. H. Bock Reviewed by
Prepared by
4-101
SMF Oxygen Liquefaction Facility
%.J
Systems Concept B employs a mass driver catapult on the lunar surface to supply
an orbital processing and manufacturing facility with raw lunar material. Although
the total oxygen propellant requirements are reduced for Concept B, a substantial
amount is still required for POTV oxidizer and COTV propellants. The orbital
liquefaction depot required to supply this oxygen differs from the comparable lunar
surface facility in two respects; the radiator area and mass requirements are
considerably reduced for in-space operation, and flexible propellant containers
rather than rigid tanks can be used for I_O 2 storage and transport. It has been
conveniently assumed that the SMF is located in an orbit which is almost always
illuminated by the sun. Since sun light is continuously available, a photovoltaic
array is probably the most desirable source of electrical energy. Table 4-30
gives an estimate of the equipment mass for an orbital oxygen liquefaction plant and
its ph0tovoltaic power supply. Figure 4-19 depicts an orbital oxygen liquefaction plant
with equivalent capability to the lunar surface depot of Figure 4-18.
Table 4-30. SMF Oxygen liquefaction equipment mass estimate. %J
Oxygen Liquefaction Rate (T/hr) 28.6
Power Required (IVSV) 23.2
Power Supply Mass Estimate (T) 125
Liquefaction Depot Mass Estimate (T) 633
Liquefaction Equipment (185.5)
Heat Exchangers & Pumps (3.0)

Radiator and Transport Fluid (407.7)
ACS and Avionics ( 8. S)
Structural Enclosure, Etc. (28.3)
The complete SMF propellant depot for systems Concept B will combine the oxygen
liquefaction facility of Figure 4-19 with a hydrogen/oxygen storage depot similar
to that shown in Figure 4--16. All propellant storage modules will probably be like
the flexible container configuration shown in Figure 4-17.
4-102
Figure 4-19.
LRU ELEM£NT DATA SHEET
GENE!_%L DESCRIPTION
Element Definition SMF Oxygen Liquefaction Facility

i___. ],,late
rlal 15rocesslng
L== -
• Transpo_at:on
! X__J
L=frastructure
Sizing Assumptions Produce 28.6 T LO 2 Per Hour -
Photovoltaic Power Supply Included
=f
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) Radiators -3 Scaling Relationships

100 m x 220 m each / Approximately
/ linear, 14.3 T/hr
I production rate depot

i has mass of -382 T
i
J
i
E
280 *I
LO 2 Flexible _ Liquefaction equip-

t
I I ment Housed in ET
Storage Modules
I
Hydrogen Tank
i
!
(4 Shown)
t
280m
Ph'YSlCAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume 1523 m3/Module Delivery vehicle

_,,._ert ',Veight 758 T Array Area 155,200 mz
Con_cumable Wt. N/A Radiator Area 44r000 m2 SDV
C:oss :A'eight 758 T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput 28.6 T/hr Initial LEO _ COTV
Shu_le
_t3rage Cap. _650 T/Module Final SMF Orbit LTV
PE_ FORMANCE CHARACTEB:

Power R_'d 23.2 MW Personnel Req'ts.
i'hrast Level N/A Efficiency 0.3 kW-hr/lb LO 2 Primary
Specific br.pulse 4.2 kN-s/k__(_AC%onsumab!es _1% Stored Prop Support
Acceleration N/A Waste Heat N/A Super-:isory
Uay!oad Cap. N/A Flow Rates 28.6 T/hr Gro_md
Transfer Time N/A Useful output 250,000 T/yr. Total
Data Source(s) Orbital Propellant Handlin_ & Storage Systems for Large Space Programs
NAS 9-15305 CASD-ASP 78-001
; q'C[5::ru(i ;_y
E. H. Bock Reviewed by
4-103
Propellant Storage and Liquefaction Facility Sizin_ Summary
Propellant depot sizing is a function of the propellant requirements of user vehicles,
propellants supplied to other depots, and the propellant delivery/consumption schedule.
Table 4-31 identifies the propellant storage quantity requirements for depots in LRU
systems Concepts B, C and D based on steady state logistics scenario analyses.
Details for development of these storage quantities are contained in Tables G-44
through G--46 of Appendix G in Volume HI. The six month storage time used for
most depots reflects the twice per year delivery schedule of ion electric COTV's.
Reduced storage periods can be used for some LLO depots and the lunar surface depots
since the primary delivery vehicles (for oxygen) are scheduled daily. A minimum one
month storage allowable is considered prudent to account for processing variations
during the lunar day/night cycle.
Depot mass estimates were based on propellant storage in rigid modules suitable for
delivery from earth with the Shuttle derived vehicle. The LO 2 module has a 190.5 T
capacity and an inert mass of 2.6 T, while the LH 2 module has a 102.7 T capacity and
an inert mass of 22.1 T. Depot mass was determined by the relationship:
Storage Storage
+ 102.7 K Dep°t
. Depot N_ dules
MDepo t = 190.5 r_LO 2 2 LH 2 N_LH_2ules
Depot KDepot =
0. 264 and N is the quantity of storage modules
where KLO 2 = 0.0212 and LH2
Liquefaction facilities are required adjacent to each LRU option's lunar material pro-
cessing facility to process gasseous oxygen obtained from lunar soil into liquid pro-
pellant. Equipment mass estimates were derived from data in the NAS9-19305 pro-
pellant handling study using the following assumption: For the SMF, a 5 percent down-
time due to shadowing plus a 15 percent maintenance allowance was used to define
the required processing rate. For the lunar surface facility a 25 percent maintenance
allowance for continuous operation was used to define the required processing rate.
A configuration summary is included in Figure 4-20 to depict the general arrangement of
recommended depot and liquefaction facilities.
4-104
Table 4-31. Propellant Facility Sizing Summary.
Concept B Concept C Concept D

LO2 LH2 LO2 LH2 LO2 LH2
LEO 6-month storage 6-month storage 6-month storage
Propellant (T) 3,158.3 687.9 4,588.2 5,100.5 3,254.0 485.8
,= __
Storage modules 17 7 25 50 18 5
i Depot mass (T) 258.5 1456.6 208.3
GEO 6-month storage 6-month storage 6-month storage
Propellant (T) 81.8 11.7 454.3 64.9 454.3 64.9
Depot mass (3") 31.2 39.2 39.2
Storage LLO 6-month storage 4-months-3 4-month storage
Facilities
Propellant (T) 56.4 8.1 6,727.8 2,396.3 6,116.9 133.0
Depot mass (T) 31.2 796.1 187.5
SMF or moon 6-month storage 1-month storage 1-month storage
Propellant (T) 9,938.5 480.1 7,178.2 -- 12,927.3 5,135.3
AI
Storage modules 53 5 38 0 68
Depot mass (T) 349.6 153.5 274.6
Liquefaction facility SMF Lunar Surface Lunar Surface

Annual LO 2 reqt (T) 19,877.0 86,138.4 55,127.7
Processing rate (Tlhr) 2.72 12.29 22.14
Facility mass (T) 75.8 486 836
PROPELLANT STORAGE OXYGEN LIQUEFACTION (SMF)

(LEO, GEO, LLO, SMF) Radiators 100 m x 200 m each -_
/
r-
array
Photovollatc
I
280 m [_ Liquefaction
I LO2 flexible---- equipment
storage modules housed in ET
(4 shown) hydrogen tank
I.
28Om
OXYGEN LIQUEFACTION (LUNAR BASE)

8.4 m dia
LH2
• 1.m
'-:_ 2.5 m dia
L02 L02 L02 L02 ._. e equip tunnel
ET LH 2 tank
-containing
liquefaction
J Superinsulated machinery --
LO2 slorage & pressurized for
transfer modules mainlenance
2.6T each
Figure 4-20. Configuration Summary.
4-105
4.8.2 Habitats - Living quarters are required at each major lunar resource
kJ
utilizationactivitylocation, and temporary shelters may be needed at unmanned
equipment installationsto accommodate maintenance personnel. Requirements for
manned space stations can best be charac_erlzed by the criteria shown in Table 4-32.
Duty tour durations shown are conservatively low, and experience with lunar surface
living or with larger habitats incorporating pseudogravity may allow significant stay
time extensions.
Table 4--32. Habitats are grouped by three major parameters.
Nominal
Habitat Population Duty
Description Location Size Tour Group
LEO Logistics Beneath 10' s 2- 3 Months 1

Station Van-Allen (If Req'd)
Belts
LID Shelter Deep- 10's 7 Days 2

Space
Lunar Base Lunar 10's -_1,000's 6 Months 3

Surface
Lunar Outposts Lunar ~ 10 14 Days 2

Surface
L 2 Shelter Deep- _ 10 7 Days 2

Space
SIVIF Living Deep- 100's *-l,000's 6 Months 4

Quarters Space
GEO Main- Deep- 10's-,-100's 2-3 Months 1

tenance Facility Space*
*In Upper Van--Allen Radiation Belt
Four natural grdupings occur from these criteria, as shown in the table's right column.
The most significant habitat design descriminators in addition to population and stay
time are the requirements for pseudogravity and radiation protection. Pseudogravity
4-106
is implemented by spinning the habitat to provide centrifugal inertia force, and is
a physiological requirement for duty tours exceeding 6 months, based on optimistic
extrapolation of Skylab medical results. Protection from solar flare and/or
gal_'ctic radiation is a requirement for all habitats unprotected by earth's Van Allen
belts. This protection must be provided by shielding, which is easily supplied for
lunar surface installations by covering habitats with several meters of lunar regolith.
Similar shielding for deep space habitats must be transported to their location from
the lunar surface or supplied from earth.
Group 1 habitats have been studied extensively by NASA and industry since the early
1960s, and a substantial data base is available (References 40 through 45).
Group 2 habitats are temporary shelters which provide environmental protection and
cramped personnel comfort facilities (bed, board and bathroom). Their conceptual
design and programmatic definition can be easily derived from Group 1 space station
studies, except for a required solar flare storm shelter to protect personnel for up
to several days.
The Group 3 habitat, or lunar base concept, was also studied by NASA (References 46
and 47) during 1971 and 1972. The bases in both these studies were configured pri-
marily for scientific research with crew sizes from 12 to 180. Portions of these
studies, ff appropriately scaled, should be suitable for LRU lunar base definition.
Larger lunar base habitats were proposed during the 1977 Ames summer study
(References 48 and 49) which make use of Shuttle external tanks.
Group 4 habitat concepts have received considerable attention during all three Ames
summer studies involving space industrialization (References 50, 51 and 52). The
conceptual design philosophy used for these very large habitats is visionary but not
directly applicable for early SI_IF personnel needs. Since the space station designs
in Group 1 are zero-g facilities and much too small, and permanent space settlement
4-107
concepts are too large, a compromise approach is needed. Several papers have
_J
considered intermediate one-g habitats in the 100s to 1000s population size
{References 48 and 51). The former concept uses clustered ET hydrogen tanks for
pressure shells, wi_ ECLSS, alrlock/docking-adapater, power/thermal control
system, communicat{ons modules, and internal furnishings brought up by Shuttle
in kit form and installed on-orbit.
The sensitivity of the seven habitat types (Table 4-32 ) to LRU systems Concepts
B, C and D is primarily associated with population size and shielding delivery
method. Table 4-33 identifies these differences. The shielding mass
Table 4-33. Habitat design requirements are sensitive to LRU systems concepts.
Lunar Resource Utilization Systems Concept

Habitat Concept B Concept C ConceptD
LEO Logistics Similar Population, Operations & Design

Station (If Required)
LLO Shelter Similar Support Requirements & Design
Lunar Base -- Small- -- Medium- -- Medium-

(Lunar Mining (Mining, (Mining,
& Marl Processing, & Processing & .
Transport) Stock Mfg) StockMfg)
Lunar Required for Probably
D
Outposts Mass Driver Not Required

Maintenance
L 2 Shelter Required for Not Required

Mass Catcher
Maintenance *
SMF Living -- Large- -- Large- -- Large-

Quarters (Industrial Slag (Shielding Transported from Lunar
Waste Shielding) Surface)
GEO Required Included in SMF

Maintenance Functions
Facility
V
*If catcher is permanently stationed in vicinity of L 2
4-108
requirement for the SMF habitat may be a significant design constraint and cost item,
since some studies have shown shielding mass for long duration inhabitants to exceed
the remaining habitat mass by a factor of at least 10. If this shielding must be de-
livered from the moon as dedicated payload, its cost will be substantial. Obviously a
trade e_sts between crew stay time and the amount of shielding required. The ad-
vantage of using fully trained and experienced personnel is countered by the transport
cost of additional habitat shielding.
Group 1 Habitats -- Requirements for these relatively small LEO and GEO habitats
are very similar to space stations defined in the 70's for experimental applications.
The earliest 70's work (References 40 and 41) involved a 10m diameter four deck core
station delivered in one piece by a Saturn Launctl Vehicle. This space station was
capable of accommodating a crew of 12, and growth versions up to 50 personnel were
proposed. The two study contracts were extended in mid-1970 to revise these space
stations to allow delivery with the newly proposed Space Shuttle (References 42 and 43).
A modular approach was employed so that each module would fit within the Shuttle Orbiter's
4.6m diameter by 18.3m long payload bay. The baseline modular space station con-
sisted of six modules and was capable of supporting a crew of six. Expansion to
accommodate 12 crew members was accomplished by adding 2 or 3 more modules
and additional photovoltaic array. Most recently accomplished NASA space station
activity (References 44 and 45) involved definition of early space construction facilities in
LEO to demonstrate fabrication of space platforms.
Of these three configurations, the modular space station sized for Shuttle delivery appears
to be closest to meeting lunar resource utilization program requirements. The 12
person growth station defined by Rockwell International (Reference 43) has been used
as a basis for the LEO logistics station defined in Figure 4-21. This configuration
consists of 9 modules including a power module, two core modules, and six crew
r_
accommodation modules. Cargo modules are employed to house supplies for the
4-109
Figure 4- 21.
GENERA L DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition LEO modular space station
TransportaHon Less than 60 person zero g facility
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Crew size of 12 persons
Power supply included in habitat weight estimate
Z
Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 72.0 T Array Area 930 m
Consumable Wt.* 8.7 T Radiator Area 680 m z SDV
Gross Weight 80.7 T Assembly Location H,U.V
Throughput N/A Initial Earth _ COTV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final Service Location LTV
PER FORI%.IANCE CHARA CTER:

Power Req'd 26.7 kW Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level N/A Efficiency N/A _ Primary
Specific Impulse . _/A
Acceleration Zero Waste Heat ~ 24 kW Supervisory
Payload Cap, N/A Flow Rates N/A Ground
Consumables 23 k_/4av _ Support
Transfer Time . .N/A Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) "Modular Space Station r'' North American Rockwell Space Division,
Report No. 5D71-217-:.1., January 1972"
Prepared by E. H. Bock Re_-iewed by
4-110
space station.
In low Earth orbit, the Van Allen bolts provide some protection from both galactic and
solar flare radiation. For short crew stay times, the space station structure required
to contain atmospheric pressure and provide thermal protection has been deemed
acceptable for single mission radiation protection as shown in Table 4--34 (Reference
43). These single mission dosages are primarily due to an assumed solar flare event
occurring once during the 90 day mission. If the flare does occur, crew members
would be precluded from returning to space for subsequent long duration missions in
similarly protected habitats. Thus new personnel, without previous in-space work
experience would be needed for crew rotation.
Since repeated duty assi_ments in LEO are primarily dependent on the radiation
dosage received from solar flares, a storm shelter could be used to extend mission
duration and/or allow subsequent missions. Data in Reference 43 shows shielding
requirements of 15.5 g/cm 2 aluminum to reduce radiation for average solar flare to
5 rein, which is the current annual U. S. standard whole body radiation level allowable
for radiation workers. This corresponds to an additional 5 c-m of aluminum shield-
ing. If one of the crew accommodation modules is modified to provide storm shelter
capability, 24.6T of aluminum shielding must be added, bringing the total 12 person
LEO habitat inert mass to 96.6T.
Table 4-34. LEO modular space station radiation protection.
Data From Reference 43

Dose Rate
Rein Dose Allowables (270 n mi/55 ° orbit
(90--day exposure) 0. 175 aluminum equiv),
Skin 105 rein 75.2 rein
Eye 52 rein 98.6 rein-- goggles required

during solar flare event
V
Marrow 35 rein 10.5 rein
4-111
A LEO station for support of SPS construction with lunar resources would be
located in a 258 n.mi. orbit inclined 31 degrees, assuming use of I_SC as the SDV
launch facility. The radiation environment will be slightly different at this in-
clination due to the position of the Van Allen Belts, but shielding estimates based on
previous 55 degree inclined space station studies should be adequate for preliminary
sizing.
Deep space habitats, i.e., those located above earth's Van Allen Belts, require
additional shielding to protect personnel from galactic and solar flare radiation
(Ref 53 and 54). Figure 4--22 exhibits shielding requirements as a function of dose rate
for galactic radiation.
Cosmic rays from the galaxy consist of a continuous source of isotropic and highly
penetrating ionizing radiation. The radiation components which cause biological
damage are the fully ionized heavy nucleii traveling at relatively low velocities. At
V
this level of ionizing power the passage of a single iron nucleus through the human
body destroys an entire column of cells along its trajectory. The total amount of
energy dumped in the body is small, but it is concentrated intensively over localized
regionsu. In the absence of any protective shielding the galactic cosmic radiation
would deliver an annual dose of about 18 rein. The best protection against this
radiation is passive shielding. However, shielding produces secondary product
emissions due to nuclear interactions. The phenomenon of secondary particle pro-
duction is important as noted in Reference 50. "When high-energy particles collide
with shield material, they produce a great spray of particles, which in turn may
produce even more particles. Consequently, the addition of a little shielding may, in
the presence of highly energetic particles like those at the upper end of the cosmic
"ray spectrum, give rise to an even larger radiation dosage than if no shielding were
used. There is also the possibility that a little shielding will slow down the rapidly
moving heavy ions and make them more effective in the damage they do to tissue."
4-112
Figure 4- 22. Galactic radiation protection for deep space habitats.
100
80 __
60
40
35.7
20 18.4 4.8 (12/3) = 19.2
4.8 (12/4) = 14.4
10 138
4.8 (12/6) = 9.6
8 166
6
210
4.8 (12/12) =4.8
¢J
o
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o. 1 I i I t J I I
0 I00 200 300 400 500 600 700
Shielding Requirements (g/era 2)
Data obtained from Reference 52.
4-113
Thus, for shielding that has a mass of a few tons per square meter of surface protected,
the effect will be to increase the annual galactic radiation dosage from 18 rein to
approximately 36 rein.
The other source of space radiation, caused by solar flares, is normally at an insigni-
ficantly low level, but can occasionally rise to extremely high levels.
Figure 4--23 shows the total radiation does as a function of shield thickness for the
proton component of an anomalously large flare approximating the intensity of the
August 1972 flare. The secondary products are included in this calculation, but the
dose from the alpha particles is ignored. The alpha flux, however, is less than 20%
of the primary rein dose. The 1972 flare was considered very intense but on
February 23, 1956, the largest flare on record took place. It has been estimated
that during this flare people shielded by approximately 500 _cm 2 would have received
the allowable single emergency exposure of 25 rein (Reference 54). Fortunately, a
flare of this magnitude occurs only once in 20 years.
If 5 rein per year is employed as the nominal dosage rate allowed due to galactic and
solar flare radiation, shielding requirements can be determined as a function of personnel
stay time by assuming that crew members will be Hmited to a maximum of one in-space
duty assignment per year. If a storm shelter is supplied to protect crew members
against very large solar flares (500 g/cm2), nominally large flares such as the
August 1972 occurrence will provide a dosage of approximately 0.2 rein. The re-
maining 4.8 rein is therefore contributed by galactic radiation. Table 4-35 indicates
shielding requirements to provide this protection. An interesting phenomenon occurs
for the 3 month stay time in a deep space habitat; the 138 g/curt 2 shielding gives protection
equivalent to no shielding at all, due to the effect of nuclear interactions within the
shielding. Thus limiting crews to less than 3 months per year in deep space, would only
require a shielded solar flare shelter and no addtGonal shielding on habitation modules.
V
4-114
Figure 4-..23. Solar flare radiation protection for deep space habitats.
w
10,000
4,000
2,000
1,000
400
2OO
Equivalent AugUst 1972

100 Solar Flare " Data Obtained
From Peference 52.
"_ 40
2O
10
1.0
0.4
0.2
0. i
1 2 6 10 20 40 60 100 200 400
Shielding Requirements {g/era 2)
4-115
Table 4-35. Shielding requirements for deep space habitats.
Galactic
Personnel Total Low Z Equivalent Shielding Mass
Stay Time Shielding Aluminum For 12 Person
Per Year Requirements Thickness Modular Station
(Months) {g/cm2) Cm)
12 286 I.Ol 2,945
6 210 O.74 2,157
4 166 0.59 1,720
3 138 0.49 1,429
3 0 0 0
The solar flare shelter, with 500 g/curt 2 of shielding, must be capable of accom-
modating the entire habitat crew for up to several days. Conceptually this shelter
should provide a comfortable but confined rest area with an assortment of enter-
tainment media (books, movies, music, etc. ) and simple food service facilities.
Environmental control, life support, and utility services will be provided by the regular
habitat module support systems. Using current commercial jet airliners as an
analogy, approximately 1.5 m3/person will be required to meet these requirements.
To minimize shielding mass, the most efficient shelter geometry 0mintmum surface
area for a given volume)is spherical. The pressure shell plus all interior furnishings
would be obtained from earth and the shielding mass would be provided by lunar
materials, either as fused blocks or as sandbags. Table 4-36 gives estimates
of shelter mass as a function of habitat crew size. Both earth and lunar delivered
material requirements are identified. The total mass for a deep space < 3 month
habitat can be obtained by summing the weights obtained from Figure 4-21 (properly
scaled for crew size) and solar flare shelter weights from Table 4-36.
This approach of providing a solar flare shelter but no galactic radiation protection
for smaller crew size short stay time habitats is very attractive from a total mass
4-116
V Table 4.-36. Solar flare shelter size and mass estimates.
Shelter Mass From Shielding Total

Crew Radius (1) E arth(2) Mass (3) Mass
Size (m) (T) (T)
12 1.63 1.70 396.47 398.2
24 2.05 3.03 541.03 544.1
50 2.62 5.22 770.50 775.7

i =
100 3.30 7.63 1098.53 1106.2
200 4.15 11.27 1594.29 1605.6
400 5.23 22.54 2349.75 2372.3
800 6.59 45.08 3509.07 3554.2
1600 8.31 90.15 5298.73 5388.9
3200 10o46 180,30 8096.02 8276.3
m3 1/3
(1) r = (Crew Size) 1.5 Person r = Inside radius of
shelter
(2) mEart h = mpressure + mfurnishing s 206 MPa yield strength

shell & supplies Aluminum pressure shell
designed to contain a pres-
sure of 2 Earth atmospheres
= '5oo g/ 2 encloslng] - m
(3) mshielding Lshelter sphere j pressure
shell
standpoint. By comhining data in Figure 4-21, and Tables 4-35 and 4-36 , the
habitat mass requirements for longer stay times can be determined. These longer
duration habitats require galactic radiation protection in addition to the solar flare
shelter. Total habitat plus shielding mass for 3, 6 and 12 month habitats is shown in
Table 4-37. As indicated, total mass requirements for longer than 3 month stay
times increase by factors of 5.5 to 17.6 as crew size and duty tour increase. The
disadvantage of 3 month crew rotations is the increased transportation cost. Figure
4-117
Table 4-37. Total habitat mass as a function of crew stay time.
Total Mass, (T)

C rew Crew Solar 3 Month 6 Month 12 Month
Size Habitat Flare Stay Stay Stay
Modules Shelter Time Time Time
12 80.7 398.2 479 2,636 3,424
24 161.4 544.1 706 5,020 6,596

5O 336.3 778.7 1,112 10,100 13,383
100 672.5 1,106.2 1,779 19,754 26,321
2OO 1345.0 1,605.6 2,951 38,901 52,034
B--26 (Appendix B, Volume HI) shows material requirements sensitivity to person-
nel stay time for LRU System Concept C. At the 89.6 percent LRU level, doubling
crew stay time for all 1,565 personnel decreases total Earth material requirements by
appro,'dmately 13 percent. This corresponds to a reduction in SDV cargo of ~1180
T/year (for production of 1 SPS per year) and cuts Space Shuttle launches and there- %,J
fore propellant requirements in half. Galactic shielding requirements shown are
relatively inefficient due to the modular habitat configuration. For larger crew sizes
( > 50), more efficient habitat shapes having less surface area per unit of volume
enclosed may considerably reduce the mass impact of galactic shielding and provide
a favorable tradeoff with decreased personnel transportation requirements.
Group 2 Habitats -- These temporary shelters are required to support maintenance
personnel at remote locations. Generally, the equipment requiring service at these
locations will be capable of supplying power for these temporary shelters when inhabited,
so separate habitat dedicated power is not needed. The shelters must consist of at
least two independent modules capable of providing essential services plus a common
docking facility and an airlock for exterior access. This can be accomplished by two
crew accommodation modules and a short core module from the modular space station
4-118
described in Figure 4-21. Galactic radiation protection will not be required since
residence times for maintenance personnel will be brief. A shelter for solar flare
protection would be desirable but perhaps not mandatory, since re_o_lar maintenance
could be scheduled for quiescent solar activity periods. The minimum temporary shelter
for six personnel is shown in Figure 4-24. For in-space shelter applications, the habitat
will probably be attached to the operating equipment at that location. Lunar shelters
will be adjacent to, but probably not connected with operating equipment located on the
moon's surface.
Group 3 Habitats -- Lunar base habitat crew size requirements range from relatively
modest support for LRU Systems Concept B (48 people) to many 100's of people
for Concepts C and D which include lunar surface manufacturkug. This range of habitat
populations can conceivably be satisfied by a variety of configurations and design concepts.
These include earth fabricated modules similar to the LEO Space Station of Figure 4-21
for smaller populations, to the very large lunar base constructed in-place using lunar
materials with only life support equipment and utility service kits brought from earth.
Between these extremes lie larger pressure shell modules which consist of salvaged
expendable propellant tanks and deployable/inflatable or prefabricated structures, all of
which incorporate life support and utility service kits brought from earth. A relatively
large lunar base is likely to consist of a mixture of these habitat types. Early exploration
and base construction teams will require immediate lunar surface protection best pro-
vided by complete earth supplied modules. These can be used as construction shacks
from which the base is expanded, initially using components obtained primarily from
earth. The latter stages of expansion will permit larger module construction using
lunar derived materials.
For the purposes of this study, fully equipped modular habitats will be assumed for small
populations, and larger modules derived from Shuttle and Shuttle derived cargo vehicle
expended external hydrogen tanks will be assumed for larger populations. The selection
4-119
Figure 4- 24.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Temporary Shelter
Transportation Less than 12 Persons Zero g Facility
Infrastructure
Sizing ._ussumptions Temporary accommodations for 6
persons, power supply not included (power obtained from serviced facility)
Scaling Relationships
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) _ 6 m... Approximately

Linear- Shelter
designed for 12 persor
crew requires 2 ×
facility size & mass.
Shelter can, however,
temporarily accom-
modate at least 2 ×
nominal crew size for
short periods.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume 340 m 3

Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 23.2 T Array Area
Consumable Wt. 2.9 T Radiator Area 226m z 8DV
Gross Weight 26.1 T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput N/A Initial Earth _ Shuttle
COTV
Storage Cap. N/A Final Service Location LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER:
Power Req'd ~ 13 kW Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level N/A Efficiency N/A
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables 11 lrg/Day Support
Acceleration Zero g Waste Heat ~ 8 kW Supervisory
Payload Cap. ..N/A Flow Rates N/A _ Ground
Primary
Data Source(s) "Modular Space Station" North American Rockwell Space Division,
Report No. SD71-217-i_ january 1972 i
4-120
iz==_
i---¸
V of these two particular options has been accomplished without benefit of a trade study,
and their employment should be viewed as representative.
Earth supplied lunar base habitat elements, including pressure shells, functional
modules, and furnishing kits, are all subjected to a unique but obvious logistics con-
sideration; they must be landed on the moon. Previous studies have concluded that the
preferable handling technique for lunar delivered payload is via balanced mounting on
either side of the lunar lander. This permits easy unloading by simultaneous lowering
onto the lunar surface, and eliminates the need for a crane to remove a single axially
mounted payload. Individual habitat element weights are therefore constrained to half
the payload landing capability of the lunar transfer vehicle. This should present no
difficulty for Concepts C and D since the LTV is sized for cargo transfer from lunar
surface to LLO, but may affect Concept B since during steady state operations the only
LTV requirement is for crew transfer and delivery of life support supplies.
©
Radiation and thermal protection for lunar base habitats is easily accomplished by
covering the crew living and activity modules with several meters of lunar soil. The
most efficient method of doing this involves placement of modules into ditches of
approximately one-half module depth to reduce the quantity of coverage soil required.
Due to this need for lunar base coverage, it also follows that the best module position
is horizontal rather than vertical, which dictates internal design features for the
habitat.
The lunar base for small crews has been derived from data contained in Reference 46.
The configuration for a 12 person habitat is defined in Figure 4-25. Habitat con-
sumables were estimated based on the following guidelines.
(1) A fully closed water loop was assumed. Losses are made up by excess w_tter
accomulated fro_a the non-dehydrated food supply.

Figure 4-25.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Lunar Base Habitat, Incl
Transportation Maintenance & Recreation Facilities
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Crew Size of 12 persons.
Power requirements defined (and implemented) independently of Habitat.
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) Scaling Relationships
Approximately
linear- 24 person
crew requires 2 x
facility size
*Consumables for 6
months plus food and
"'
nitrogen for an
additional 3 months
8 Modules
Each 5 m dia×
10 m long
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume _n_,,,3 Delivery Vehicle

Inert Weight 28.6 T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. 17.6 T " Radiator Area _75 m 2 SDV
Gross Weight 46.2 T Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final Lunar Surface LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER: Power Req'd 20 kW Personnel Req'ts.

Thrust Level N/A Efficiency N/A Primary
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables 23 k_/Da_- Support
Acceleration 1/6 _ Waste Heat 16 kW Supervisory
Payload Cap. N/A Flow Rates N/A Ground
Data Source(s) Lunar Base Synthesis Study NAS 8--26145
NAR SD 71-477 15 i_ay 1971

4-122
V
(2) A fully closed oxygen loop was assumed. Losses due to leakage and alrlock
operation can be easily made up from lunar derived oxygen. Except for initial
supply, no earth oxygen is required.
(3) Assume nitrogen leakage and alrlock losses of 0.1 kg/person/earth-day. This
makeup is supplied from earth.
(4) The food loop was assumed to remain open, with 1.8 kg/person/earth-day of
frozen or packaged foods required.
(5) A habitat atmosphere of oxygen and nitrogen with a nominal total pressure of
69 kPa(10 psi) was used (conforms to desi_ requirements in Reference 46.
(6) Assume an initialsupply of consumables dapable of sustaining the crew for 180
earth.days without any recycling, plus additional food and potable water for
another 90 earth-days.
Table 4-38. itemizes the 12 person habitat consumable supplies obtained by employ-
ing these guidelines. Nominal crewperson requirements were based on data in
Reference 46.
Table 4-38. Initial consumables for 12 person lunar base.
Mass/Person/ i Crew Earth Total

Consumables Earth Day (k_) I Size Days .... Mass (T)
2.3 12 270 7.5

Potable H20
22.5 12 5* 1.4
Wash H20
Food 1.8 12 270 5,8
Oxygen 0. 85 12 180 1.8
Nitrogen 0.1 12 180 0.2
InitialAtmos 12 0.9
*Recycled Total 17.6
4-123
The 8 module 12 person lunar habitat shownin Figure 4-25 consists of a crew and
medical module, crew andoperations module, sortie and transient crew module, lab
and backup commandmodule, assembly and recreation module, base maintenancemodule,
drive-in garage module, and drive-in warehousemodule. As the base is expandedto
accommodate additional personnel, and surface operations become more production/
maintenance rather than scientifically oriented, the module functions neededwill vary
somewhat, although an equivalent of 8 more modules are probably required for each
increment of 12 crew members.
The larger ~1,000 person size lunar base habitat is constructed of modules derived
from external tanks brought to LEO by Shuttle and Shuttle derived launch vehicles.
The Space Shuttle ET is normally jettisoned suberbitally when it has approximately 98
percen t of its required orbital velocity, so it is relatively inexpensive to delay its
separation until orbit is achieved. The ET consists of three major structural as-
semblies; the oxygen tank, intertank adapter, and hydrogen tank. The hydrogen tank is
the largest of these and is best suited for use as a habitat pressure shell. It is 8.4 m
in diameter by 29.4 m long with a volume of 1,520 m 3. Its welded aluminum structure is
designed to contain 100 T of liquid hydrogen at 230 kPa through the relatively h/gh
loading conditions imposed during Shuttle ascent. This tank is capable of withstanding
habitat loading conditions with a substantial margin of safety.
The utilization of these expended tanks is desirable since their delivery cost to LEO
is negligible. For dedicated payloads, delivery to LEO is the most significant in-
crement of earth to lunar surface transportation expense, so finding a useful application
for normally discarded equipment already placed in LEO should be cost effective. The
size of the ET hydrogen tank also permits interior design freedoms to enhance livability
not possible with Shuttle or SDV constrained payloads. Each hydrogen tank is con--
verted into one of several habitat types by the installation of functional modules such as
Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) and connector segments,
4-124
and kits for interior structure, furnishings, and utilities. The installation of these
modules and kits can be accomplished either in I.EO or on the lunar surface. The
LEO conversion is desirable for the earliest habitats if LTV performance capability
is suitable for landing these heavier payloads.
A conceptual large lunar base consists of several residential modules clustered around
a communal core module. A sketch of these two modules is contained in Figure 4-26.
Both the residential and core modules have two floors with ceiling heights of 2.5 m.
The residential module consists of ten 3.7 x 4.0 m studio apartments suitable for one or
two people and two rest-rooms on each level. The core tank would provide dining and
recreational facilities on the upper level, while the lower level contains the major
access corridor to other lunar base clusters, and smaller meeting, gymnasium, laundry
and special purpose rooms. Spiral stairways connect upper and lower levels.
An entire 1200 person base might be geometrically arranged as shown in Figure 4- 27.
Each of five clusters consists of three core modules and 12 residential modules capable
of housing 240 people. The in line core modules are arranged so that three clusters meet
at a hub. This forms a hexagonal pattern which can be expanded to accommodate lunar
base g-rowth. The hub could consist of a vertical ET hydrogen tank with an observation
deck (or lounge) protrading above the lunar soil used to cover the other modules.
Each residential module has two 12 man ECLSS pods connected to it. One pod serves as
the connecting passageway into the core module access corridor, and the other as emergency
access to the utility services tunnel. Internal access is provided to all E CLSS equipment
for maintenance, and each pod would have airtight doors to permit isolation of any
residential module. Core modules are linked to each other and hub modules with
interconnects, which are also equipped with pressure tight doors.
4-125
Residential Module Upper Floor
/ I_IDown AptCX0_
14.om I "ffoo_
\
"---A
.,----- 8.4 m----_

Lower Floor
i I I
0.9 rn Hall (TY2--
!
29.4 m -i
Core Module Upper Floor
Down_
D°_'nDirdng Area Galley Recreation _ _
-0.9 m Hall Lower Floor
2.5n
R OOITI S
_l_Gy m .....
I_eeting
1.Sin
S ec' Pantry
Figure 4-26. Configuration of lunar base habitat modules constructed from

ET hydrogen tanks.
4- 12_
195 m
Airlock Module (4) --_
r-- Hub Module (2) \

\
!
/
/
,/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
:-- Core Module (15) Pesidential

Module (60)
Environmental
Control life
Interconnects (19)-_ Support Pod
Utility Services
(ECISS) (120)
Tunnel \
\
\
Figure 4-27. Conceptual geometric arrangement for 1200 person lunar base using ET LH 2 tanks.
4-127
The four core tanks at the habitat extremities are attached to alrlocks rather than hub
V
modules. These airlock modules include suit storage, donning andlunar dust re-
moval facilities, plus an efficient atrlock permitting convenient access to the lunar
surface. High capacity pumps and high pressure air storage bottles are employed to
limit oxygen/nitrogen loss during each airlock cycle. During lunar base expansion these
atrlock modules would be replaced by hubs, and relocated as required to service the
expandedhabitat configuration.
Utility service tunnels interconnect the "back" of residential modules via their ECLSS
pods to provide an emergency access route. This 2 m diameter tunnel includes power and
communication lines plus atmosphere makeup lines. The tunnel may operate unpres-
surized during normal circumstances, and only provide an atmosphere during maintenance
or emergencies.
Overall lunar base characteristics are described in the LRU Element Data Sheet included
V
as Figure 4-28. Mass estimates for the major habitat components are itemized in
Table 4--39. Total living volume and area for the 1200 person lunar base is 117,300
3 2
m and 33,000 m respectively. Power required has been estima ted at 9 kW per person.
This is relatively lavish compared to the 2. 87 kW per person average power available
in Skylab, but is considered reasonable for extended duration comfortable living. Initial
consumable requirements were estimated using the same rationale as for the 12 person
habitat, i.e., oxygen for 6 months and food and water for 9 months.
Class 4 Habitats -- The Space Manufacturing Facility (SMF) habitat is located in deep
space, and must support relatively large populations for extended duty tours. These
requirements lead to two unique design features for Class 4 habitats; pseudogravity
obtained by habitat rotation, and total residential volume envelopment by radiation shield-
ing. The best description of an early habitat with these characteristics is contained in
Reference 48. This habitat configuration, shown in Figure 4--29, is also based on the
4--128
Figure 4- 28.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
I
Material Processing Element Definition Large Modular Lunar Base
Transportation Constructed with ET LH 2 Tanks

1 Infrastructure u
Sizing Assumptions 1200 person habitat - power supplied
by independent lunar surface facilities
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) Scalthg Relationships

Approximately liner-
RADIATORS
crew size of 600
personnel would have
mass of ~ 2,000 T
60 Residential Modules
15 Core Modules
2 I:Iub Modules
4 Airlock Modules
PHYSICAL CHAR.ACTERISTICS: Total Volume 117,300 m S Delivery Vehicle

Inert Weight 4,163 T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. I, 773 T Radiator Area 37,500m 2' SDV
Gross Weight 5,936 T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput N/A Initial LEO _ COTV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. ;q/A Final Lunar Surface LTV
PER FORMANCE CHARACTER: 10.8 MW

Power Req'd Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level N/A Efficiency N/A [_ Primary
D
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables Support
Acceleration 1/6 g Waste Heat 8.6 MW
Supervisory
Transfer Time N/A ..... Useful outpu[ N/A Total
Data Source(s) "Habitat and Logistic Support Requirements for Initiation of a
Space Mfg Enterprise," J. P. Vajk, 1977 Ames-OAST Summer Study
Prepared by E. H. Bock Reviewed by
4-129
Table 4-39 1200 person lunar base habitat mass estimate.
Element Qty Req'd Total

Mass for 1,200 Mass
(T) Persons (T)
Residential Module- 20 Persons 60 2, 106
ET LH 2 Tank - Stripped of Bolt-ons 14.4
Interior Structure 9.1
Flooring 440 m 2 @ I0 kg/m 2 4.4
Ceiling 440 m 2 @ 2.5 kg/m 2 1.1
Partitions 560 m 2 @ 5.0 kg/m 2 2.8
E T Wall 320 m 2 @ 2.5 kg/m 2 0.8
Furnishings 450 kg/Person 9.0
Other Miscellaneous Equipment (8%) 2.6
Core Module - 80 Per sons 42.3 15 635
ET LH 2 Tank - Stripped of Bolt- ons 14.4

Flooring 440 m 2 @ 15 kg/m 2 6.6
Ceiling 440 m 2 @ 2. 5 kg/m 2 I.I
ET Wall 320 m 2 @ 2.5 kg/m 2 0.8
Furnishings ~180 kg/Person 14.4
Hub Module 48.7 2 97

14.4 --
ET LH 2 Tank - Shipped of Bolt-ons
Furnishings 14.2
ECLSS Pods - 12 Person 10.4 120 1,248

Structure and Pressure Door 1.0
Atmos Supply, Control & Re 7- 5.9
conditioning
Water and Waste M_n-agement 1.5
Thermal Control Inel Radiator 4.0
Airlock Module 8.0 4 32

n
Structure and Pressure Doors 3.5

Interior Furnishings 1.4
Airlock Equipment (Pumps, 3.'I
Storage, Etc. )
Core/Hub/Airlock Interconnect 0.7 19 13

m
n
Utility Services Tunnel @ 50 kg/m × 650 m 32
Total Mass 4,163
4-130
use of ET hydrogen tanks as modular pressure shells. The following habitat description,
with some minor revision, has been directly quoted from Reference 48. For the SMF
orbital application, a condominium apartment tower confi_o_iration has been adopted by
.dividing each tank into eleven levels of circular floor plan with 2.5 m ceiling heights. A
1.8 m diameter central shaft runs the entire length of each tank, containing a dumb-
waiter-like continuous belt elevator and ladders for access to all levels, plus utility
service lines.
For the SMF habitat, several residential modules would be clustered around a communal
core module. The lowest level (in the bottom hemispherical dome of the tank) would be
used for storage and for maintenance equipment. In the residential modules, seven of
the levels would be divided up into three segments surrounding the elevator shaft to
provide three studio apartments. Each apartment would have 17.1 m 2 of floor space,
sufficient for one or two people. Two levels (in the middle of the tank) would provide
toilet, bath, and laundry facilities, while the top level (in the upper hemispherical dome)
would be used as a leisure and social area.
In the core modules, the lowest level would be used for storage and maintenance. The
next three levels up Would provide recreational facilities. A pantry and a galley would
follow on the next two levels, with the following three levels used for dining rooms.
(The dining rooms would double as assembly halls and entertainment centers as well. )
The two topmost levels v_ uld be used for EVA preparation, p roviding lockers for storage
of EVA suits and facilities for recharging oxygen tanks and EVA suit repairs.
The top level and sixth level of each residential module would be connected to the
corresponding levels of the core module and of each adjacent residential module. When
fully occupied, each residential module {21 people) requires t_vo ECLSS pods (12 people
each). These can be nestled between adjacent hydrogen tanks, with short tunnels con-
necting each pod to both hydrogen tanks to provide access to the ECLSS equipment for
4-131
i
100 m
Support
Cables Studio
\ Apt (21)
2
17.1 m
! 0.74 m Radiation Shield

..2
Figure 4-29. Proposed configuration for modular 1 g S_IF

habitat employing ET hydrogen tanks.
4-132
maintenance as well as to provide alternative emergency passageways between tanks.
All passageways would be equipped with airtight hatches to permit isolation of any
module.
[L: ::_
Two identical clusters consisting of 6 residential and 1 core module can then be assembl-
ed with two 140 m long tunnels between them to form a dumbell-like configuration.
Rotation at 3 RPM provides "earth-normal gravity" at the bottom level of each module,
and "0.7 gravities" at the top level. Each tunnel is stress-free, the hydrogen tanks
being supported from the docking hub at the middle of each connecting tunnel by cables.
Each module has an emergency air lock at the top level, with routine entry into the
habitat through two airlocks in the hub. Three of these cluster pairs can be arranged
in a plane and connected to a common hub module. The habitat can be further ex'panded by
attaching another hub to the first one through a spin bearing. Spin-up can then be
accomplished without expending reaction mass by counter-rotating the hubs. Elevators
located within each tunnel provide efficient personnel transport from the "earth normal g"
clusters to the zero g hub. The total population of a SMF habitat consisting of six habitat
cluster pairs is (6 sets) (2 clusters) (6 residential modules) (21 persons/module)
= 1512 people.
The general description of this habitat is contained in Figure 4-30. The data sheet
sketch shows each of the 12 hexagonal tank clusters with a large radiator attached to
dissipate the habitat heat load. The hub would probably be attached via the tunnel shown
to separate manufacturing facilities. Habitat power would be provided from the S_IF
via a cable routed through this tunnel. The hub might also include a despun observation
facility and docking ports°
Inert mass estinmtes for the 1500 person SMF habitat are contained in Table 4-40.
In addition to the earth delivered mass shown in this table, 85.5 kT of shielding mass is
required for habitat radiation protection. This shielding mass estimate is predicated on
4-133
Figure 4-30.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Large Modular 1 g SMF Habitat
Transportation Constructed with ET LH 2 Tanks

Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions 1500 person habitat - power supplied
by independent SMF installation - radiation protection for 6 month stay time.
72 Residential Modules Approximately linear -

12 Core Modules crew size of 750
3 RPM personnel would have
2 Hub Modules
200 m _n'oss habitat weight
of ~46,700 T
*Includes 5650 T of
habitat plus 85,472 T
of shielding made from
lunar material
3 RPM
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume 128,000m 3 Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 91,122 T* Array Area N/A _ Shuttle

Consumable Wt. 2,203 T Radiator Area __ 30,000 m _ -- SDV
Throughput _N/A Initial LEO COTV

Gross Weight 93,325 T Assembly Location _ HLLV
Storage Cap. N/A Final SMF Location LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER: Power Req'd 13.5 MW Personnel Req'ts.

Thrust Level N/A
......... Efficiency N/A _ Primary
Acceleration 0.7 _ I_ 0 _ Waste Heat .-, 12 MW Supervisory

Specific Impulse N/A Consumables 2.9T/Day _ Support
Data Source(s) "Habitat and Logistic Support Requirements for Initiation of a Space
Mf_ Enterprises," J. P. Vaj k, 1977 Ames-OAST Summer Study 7
""' ' '_
Prepared by E. H. Beck Reviewed by
4-134
J
Table 4-40. 1500 person S_IF habitat mass estimate
Element Qty Req'd Total

Mass for 1500 Mass
(W) Persons (T)
Residential Module- 21 person
72 2,873
ET LH 2 Tank-Stripped of Bolt-ons 14.4
=
Flooring 514 m 2 @ 15 kg/m 2 7.7
ET Wall 806 m 2 @ 2.5 kg/m 2 2.0
Central Shaft & Conveyors 0.9
Other Structure 1.8
Furnishings 450 kg/Person 9.5
Other Service & Misc Equipment (8%) 3.0
Core Module - 125 Person 48..___9 12 587

ET LH 2 Tank - Stripped of Bolt-ons 14.4-----
Flooring S14 m 2 @ 20 kg/m 2 10.3
Partitions 120 m 2 @ 2. 5 kg/m 2 0.3
f_
ET Wall 806 m 2 @ 2.5 kg/m 2 2.0
Central Shaft & Conveyors 0.9
.Other Structure 2.4
Furnishings ~120 kg./Person 15.0
Other Services & Misc Equipment (8%) 3.6
Hub Module 24.0 48

ET LH 2 Tank- Stripped of Bolt-ons 14° 4 --
Furnishings 3.6
ECLSS Pods - 12 Person 10.__4 150 1,560
1
Structure and Pressure Door 1.0
Atmos Supply Control & Reconditioning 5.9
Water and Waste Management 1.5
Thermal Control Incl Radiator 4.0
/Hub Mod J
Spin Bearing Assemblies 2.0 3 6
m
m
Air Lock Modules s.o 2 16
Radial Connection Assemblies 12 560

Transfer Tunnels 2 @ 4,000 kg 8.0
Elevators 2 @ 800 kg 1.6
Cables 7 Tanks × 5,300 kg/Tank 37.1
Total Mass 5,650
4-135
a 6 month per year crew stay time, which requires an equivalent aluminum shield
thickness of 0.74 m, based on the data contained in Table 4-35. Additional
protection from solar flares can be obtained in core modules since they are surrounded
by residential modules, and life support provisions (food and water) can be specifically
stored to provide additional mass about the central levels on the core module.
Shielding can be most economically obtained by using lunar materials. Initially, raw
lunar materials delivered for SMF processing could be stored about the habitat tank
clusters. The raw material shielding would subsequently be replaced by slag obtained
from lunar material processing. This slag radiation shielding should have physical
properties sufficient to react the 1 g pseudogravity loads due to habitat rotation, so
habitat spirt-up could not be accomplished until this substitution was completed.
Summary Habitat Comparison
A per person comparison of five habitats defined in this section is contained in Table
4-41. The most massive is the lg SMF habitat due to its pseudogravity and en-
comp assing galactic radiation shielding. The GEO and LEO habitats are the next
most massive due to their solar flare shelter requirements. The lunar base habitats
are the least massive since "no charge" _ made for their radiation protection which
is conveniently supplied by lunar soil. The volume and area per person results are
surprisingly close for all five habitats -- no specific groundrules were set to obtain
this degree of conformity.
Habitat size and mass estimates for earth delivered modules are shown in Table 4-42
for LRU concepts. Shielding material source and applications are parenthetically
indicated. Terrestrial material (TM) has been assumed for the LEO lo_stics station
and LLO temporary shelter solar flare shelters. Terrestrial shielding material is
included in the mass estimates sho_n. All other habitats employ lunar material
(LM) for galactic and solar.flare radiation protection. A configuration summary is
included in Figure 4-31.
4-136
_ Table 4-41. Habitat Comparison.
Earth Lunar Total

Volum._e Area mass ET mass mass mass
Person Person Person Person Persol; Person
Habitat Description (m3) (m2) (T) (T) m m
12-person LEO habitat 8.05
87.3 25.9 6.00 N/A
with solar flare shelter 1.5 -- 2.05
200-person GEO habitat 14.03

87.3 25.9 6.00 N/A R
with solar flare shelter 1.5 -- 0.06 7.97
12-person lunar base 85.3 25.0 2,38 N/A t

2.38
1200-person lunar base 97.8 27.5 2.55 0.92 o

3.47
1500-person SMF habitat 85.3 28.7 2.94 0.83 57.0 60.77

with galactic radiation
shielding
"Habitat is covered with several meters of lunar soil available at the

construction site
Lunar & SMF habitats do not include power supplies
Table 4-42. Habitat Sizing Summary.
Lunar Resource Utilization Systems Concept

Habitat
Group
B C&D
LEO logistics 75 person 604 T 75 person 604 T

station 1
(TM solar flare shelter) (TM solar flare shelter)
LLO silelter 12 person 52 T 12 person 52 T

(temporary) (TM solar flare shelter) 2
(TM solar flare shelter)
Lunar base 48 person 185 T 400 person 2000 T

(lunar soil shielding) 3
(lunar soil shielding)
Lunar
12 person 30 T
outposts Not required
(lunar soil shielding)
(temporary)
SMF living 1365 person 7853T 1165 person 4460 T

4
quarters (Industrial slag shielding) (LM solar flare shelter)
GEO
36 person 242 T Integrated with SMF
maintenance
(industrial slag shielding) living quarters
facilily
4-137
LEO GEO STATION (12 PEOPLE) GROUP 1 LUNAR BASE (12 PEOPLE) GROUP 3
• 62
Shuttle deliverable'_ _ ' _ U,,
2 Core modules _'_ \_.-._. _ [[_ ,_/" Shuttle deliverable
6 Station modules -E/ o- u;es
1 Power module Each5mdiax lOmiong
LUNAR BASE (1,200 PEOPLE) GROUP 3 SMF HABITAT (1,500 PEOPLE) GROUP 4
72 Residential modules
12 Core modules n.__i, 3 RPM
Radiators\ ........107m_ _ -,:-__
2 Hub modules
-- _ 201
,_$7X?_. 3RPM
• _/__ 65 c:rSied_(_:laulle
s_o_les
- 2H,;Jm' ;,es Radiators__

4 Airlock modules
Figure 4-31. Habitat Configuration Summary.
4.5.3 Power Systems -- The purpose of this section is to size and scale power
systems capable of meeting the requirements of a lunar resources utilization program
using technology projections for the early 1990 time period. Power systems located
at the lunar equatorial surface and a geosynchronous position are assumed with a
nominal electrical power output of 350 megawatts.
A survey of possible power systems was made to see which concept or concepts should
be considered for this particular application. A summary of this survey is shown in
Table 4-43.
For the LRU program the photovoltaic and nuclear fission Brayton cycle power
systems have been selected as the two concepts for sizing and scaling. Photovoltaic
devices were selected because they have demonstrated low cost and high reliability
4-138
Table 4-43. Power System Summary (1990 Technology).
Watts/kg Comments
Power Sources[
I Solar Devices
Photovoltaic 200 A candidate concept
Thermionic 16 Not expected to be operational by 1990
Dynamic (Brayton) 8
H Nuclear Devices
Radioisotope
Thermoelectric 4 Cannot meet expected large
Thermionic 60 multimegawatt power requirements.
Dynamic (Brayton) 6 However, could be used as storage
power or backup power source.
Fis sion
Thermoelectric 4 Under-development. Needs much
Thermlonic ,25 emphasis to meet requirements by 1990
Dynamic (Brayton) 17 A candidate concept
MHD 18 Present emphasis on terrestrial use,
MGD 200 A candidate concept. Depends on
terrestrial developments.
Thousands
Joules/kg
IPower Storage I
Batteries
Primary 200 Good reliable devices. Selection of
Secondary 120 primary and/or secondary battery
depends on mission
II Chemicals
Stable 10,000 Has good potential, probably not avail-
able by 1990.
Metastable 12,000 Available about the year 2000
III Flywheels 700 Under-development.
IV Super Conductors i0 Not competitive with other storage
devices,
Watts/kg
IPower Conditioning]
I Converters & Inverters 100 Good reliable devices. Not much
improvement expected.
II Solar Array Conditioning 10,000 Under development. Available by 1983.
IPower Distribution I
I Devices & Techniques High power technique only now being
for Space Application Studied. Preliminary studies indicate
Now Under Development this area will represent roughly 10%
of cost and weight of most power
systems.
4-139
in space power systems for the past 20 years, andprobably will continue to do so with V
the help of significant research now going on in the terrestrial applications area. The
second concept selected for sizing and sealing is a nyclear fission Brayton cycle,
primarily because it is closer to being operational by 1990 than most other concepts.
Also, it has the capability of supplying the multimegawatt power levels that are
projected for this program, and is not subject to shutdown at night.
Nuclear Power System -- A nuclear fission Brayton cycle rated at 350 megawatts
electrical output is sized and shown in the attached LRU element data sheet, Figure
4-32. It represents the estimated size range needed to process lunar soil into useful
products and propellants for a lunar resource utilization program in the 1990 time period.
For a lunar surface installation, it is not clear what type of reactor containment
structure (if any) will be required. We have assumed that if a containment dome is
needed it will be constructed primarily of lunar materials. Multiple nuclear power
plants of the same configuration would probably be desirable to provide back-up capability
and allow down-time for maintenance and refueling. Therefore, a 350 NIWe requirement
might be satisfied with three 117 _IWe plants.
A review of various "Brayton cycle systems sized to produce from 100 to 5000 mega-
watts indicates a power to weight ratio range from 300 to 400 watts per kilogram.
Therefore, linear scaling is assumed to be adequate in making further estizra tes.
A weight summary for this system is included in Table 4-44.
Solar Power System -- A solar power system rated at 350 megawatts of electrical
power is sized for two operational locations; 1) a lunar equatorial surface operation,
and 2) geosynchronous operation. Power system size differences stem from the
differences in eclipse times. The lunar eclipse period occurs 50 percent of the time
while the geosynchronous eclipse period occurs approximately 5 percent of the orbital
period. Recent studies predict solar power systems for the 1990 time period can be
sized at 100 watts per kilogram for silicon solar array with a concentration ratio
4--140
i Table 4-44. Weight summary for a 350 MWe nuclear power system.
System Components T
Reactor System 75.8

Separator 8.2
Brayton Unit 150. 0
Fuel Processing 39.0
Heat Rejection 457.0
Nuclear Shield 26.0
Control Unit 8.0
Power Conditioning (2 kW/kg 53.0
for converters) also
(converter 30°/0 initial power)
Distribution 75.0
892.0
of 1.0. Calcium solar array are projected to be 6_0 watts per kilogram at a concen-
tration ratio of 2.0. A value of 200 watts per kilogram is considered achievable by
1990 and is used in our estimates.
Energy storage represents the majority of total weight for a lunar based solar array.
A value of 22 watts per kilogram has been conservatively used in sizing this storage
system. Predictions of 60 watts per kilogram for secondary batteries have been
made if additional development funding becomes available. Ground rules and energy
storage assumptions used in developing photovoltaic power system data are identified
below:
Ground Rules
1. For lunar surface the duty cycle is 14 days on batteries followed by 14 days
on solar panels.
2. Maximum geosynchronous occulted period is 5% of orbital period or 1.2 hours.
3. NiCd battery power-to-weight ratio is 44 watts per kg if depth of discharge
(DOD) is 100%. For the lunar environment and 1990 technology, a DOD of
50% is assumed, which results in a power-to-weight ratio of 22 watts/kg.
4. System voltage is 28 VDC nominal.
4-141
Storage Capacity Required for Lunar Surface
1. 350 × 106 watts x 24 hours x 14 days = 117,600 x 106 W-hr
2. Battery Weight = 117,600 × 106 W-hrs

22 W-hrs/kg = 5,345.45 x 106 kg
3. A typical 110 A-hr battery weighs 105 kg
4. No. of 110 A-hr batteries required
= 5345.45x106kg = 51x106 batteries

105 kg
5. Energy required to recharge batteries:

Assume T = 10°C and C/D ratio = 1.05
Energy Required = 117,600 x 106 W - hr x 1.05
= 123,480 x 106 W- hr
Solar Array Size = 350 + 123T 480 = 718 I_IW

24 × 14 e
Storage Capacity Required For Geosvncbronous Orbit
1. Battery discharge time is 5% of 24 hour period
= 1.2 hours
2. Power required is 350 x 106 watts x 1.2 hours
= 420 × 106 watt-hrs
6
420 x 10 W-hrs
3. Battery weight - --19.09 x 106 kg
22 W-hrs/kg
4. No. of 110 A-hr batteries required
= 19.09x106kg = 180x103 batteries

105 kg
5. Energy required to recharge batteries
420 x 106 W-hrs × 1.05 - 441 x 106 W-hrs
441
Solar array size = 350 + = 370 MW V
(24-I. 2) e
4-142
A weight summary for the two solar array designs is shown in Table 4-45.
Table 4--45. Weight summary for a 350 MWe solar power system.
System Components Lunar (kg x 106} Geosynchronous (kg/10_}-

(1) Solar Panel (200 W/kg) 3.6 1.85
(2) Transmission 0.2 0° 08
(3) Distribution 0.4 0.15
(4) Power Conditioning 0.2 0.08
(For 20 MWe) (At 2KW/kg)
(5) Control 0.03 0.01
(6) Storage Batteries 5,345.5 19.09
Total Weight 5,350 21.26
As is obvious from data in Table 4-45, the mass of storage batteries dominates the
solar power system mass for applications on the lunar surface and in geosy,nchronous
orbit. Even a factor of three improvement in battery mass to account for our
conservative estimate does not significantly reduce the overwhelming influence of
battery weight on the total system. Due to the extreme penalty associated with energy
storage for a lunar surface photovoltaic system, use of solar power was limited to
orbital applications such as the SMF. Fi_c_ure 4-33 describes a photovoltaic power
system sized for geosyuchronous orbit. Power plant estimates for each LRU con-
cept were obtained from the 350 MWe systems in Tables 4-44 and 4-45 by linear
scaling. Nuclear Bray"ton power supplies were selected for the lunar base in all three
concepts to permit full time operations without incurring a substantial energy storage
penalty. Photovoltaic systems were selected for use in geosy-nchronous orbit, but
high power usage during occulted periods was restricted to allow significant reductions
in energy storage capacity.
Power System Sizing Summary- Power requirements for facility sizing were obtained
from start-up data contained in Section 4.8, and are shown in Table 4-46. Plant
4-143
facility requirements for meeting these power needs are summarized in Table 4-47. V
As previously discussed, in-space power plants are photovoltaic while lunar surface
facilities are nuclear. Possible lunar power plant alternatives include photovoltaic
systems with storage devices much more efficient than existing batteries, or which
utilize orbital reflectors to reduce storage requirements,
Table 4-46. LRU Concept Power Requirements.

Power Requirement (MW) B C D
Mining and Beneficiation 0.02 0.04 0.08

LUNAR SURFACE Material Processing 436.0 885.0
Manufacturing } 1.32 55.89 68.3
Transportation 39.3 ....
Habitat 0.5 3.6 3.6
TOTAL 41.14 495.5 957.0
Material Processing 331.01 ....
SPACE
Manufaqmring (except 39.82 6.98 6.98
MA NLrFA CTURING solar cells)
FACILITY
Solar Cell Manufacturing 239.04 239.04 239.04 V
Habitat 13.5 10.5 10.5
TOTAL 683.4 256.5 256.5
Table 4-47. Power Plant Sizing
LRU Concept
B C D
Lunar surface Nuclear Brayton .--

Power reqd (MW) 50 500 960
Plant mass (T) 254 1275 2450
U238 resupply (Tlyr) 0.08 0.79 1.51
SMF Photovoltaic.
Power reqd (MW) 850 260 260
Plant mass (T) 5030 2015 2015
4-144
Figure 4-32:
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Nuclear Power System
Located on Lunar Surface

Transportation
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Sizing based 0rL _ 0ucicar sat_ll_t_
5 _giwatt conceptual design.
Scalihg Relationships
Sketch (Include iMajor
V
Dimensions_
1.14kin -1 L Linear Scaling is used
from 100 to 5000
megawatts electrical
/
I. 14kin Nuclear Fission / power output.
(Volume
; Power System
Req'd)
/
..L l' Brayton Cycle
Nuclear Turbine _- -_
Processor / Bray_L°n l ]--_Radi]
Reactor O enera__ "_
a_l.
_._ _ _
[_C.0ntr.:l. __-_ Distri-

but-ion _ Power
Converters ]
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight N/A Array Area N/A ,. .,
Consumable Wt. 1.5 kg/Day U238 Radiator Area 0. I × 10_ m _ SDV
Gross Weight 0. 89 x 10 C k_ Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
• Storage Cap. N/A Final Lunar Surface LTV
PER PORMANCE CHARACTEII:

Power Req'd 1.1 x 109 W (Therma_ersonne I Req'ts.
Thrust Level N/A Efficiency 31 ,c7c [_] Primary
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables 8 kg/Day 0Reprocesse_...j Support
Acceleration N/A Waste Heat 760 ¥' 10 v w (Thermal____J Supervisor_-
Payload Cap. N/A Flow Rates N/A . ! ]Ground "
Transfer Time N/A Useful output 350 × 106W _Electric[_ 3 Total
Data Source(s) Atomics International. "A 5 C_%Vnunl_,_r _s1'_11_f_

nnwer..%v._fernonno_ntus_l
design. "
Prepared by D. E. Creed Reviewed by

4-145
Figure 4-33.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
• mmmm m
Material Processing Element Definition Photovoltaic Power System.
Transportation Solar Panel Power system a t geos_nchronous altimde
XI Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Solar Panel sizing based on 200 watts/k_
and 15_ efficiency. Batteries rated at 22 w_tts/kg,
Contains batteries, controls.

Sketch (Incl,_do Major Dimensions) Scaling Relationships
converters & distribution.
Solar
Array
Solar
T Linear
from
watts
scaling
100 to 5000
electrical
is used
mega-
power
Joint Array 1.0 km output
l *Output reduced to
2.0kin 20 x 106 W (Electric)

"W
during occulted
operations.
t Solar Array I I J
plus System
Control ___ Ene rgy

System t - ISt°rage
Total Volume N/A Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight N/A Array Area I..q × ] 06 rn2
Consumable Wt. N/A Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 3, 42 x 106 kg Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput N/A Initial Low earth orbit _ COTV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final Geosznchronous LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER: Power Req'd Solar Energy

Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level N/A Efficiency Prlmar7
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables N/A Support
Acceleration N/A Waste Heat N/A Super_,isory.
Payload Cap. N/A Flow Rates N/A
15% Ground
Transfer Time N/A Useful output 350 × 105W(Electric) * Total
Data Source(s) Rockwell & Boeing, "Solar Power Satellite Studies."
D. E. Creed
Prepared by Reviewed by
4-146
4.6 LRU TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DEFINITION
Definition of transportation system vehicles and the development of associated cost
information is a key study ingredient. This data is especially important since it is
r _
potentiat transportation cost reductions predicated on lower lunar to GEO transfer
energy requirements that suggest use of lunar-derived materials for constructing
GEO satellites.
The idea of using lunar materials for in-space construction was suggested by the
lower energy requirements needed to transport material from the lunar surface to a
point in deep space, as compared with delivery from the earth's surface to the same
point. This energy difference has been expressed as gravity wells (4,000 miles deep
for earth, 180 miles deep for the moon), and as the ratio of potential energy per
unit mass for earth and moon, i.e., 22:1. These ratios express relative energy
requirements to escape the gravitational influence of the earth and moon. The point
of interest in space for the LRU study is geosynchronous orbit, which remains within
the gravitational influence of both bodies. Another method of expressing the relative
transportation requirements is by AV, the velocity increment which must be imparted
to transfer payload from one point to another. The AV's shown in Figure 4-34 have been
determined by realistically assuming that two vehicles should be used from each
body's surface to GEO, and that payload transfer from one vehicle to the other will
occur in a low stable orbit. Based on these assumptions the energy ratio to geo-
synchronous orbit is approximately 12:1.
Another method of ex'pressing this energy ratio is as propellant mass requirements
for delivering an equivalent payload. In this case the propellant mass is strongly
influenced by the vehicle propulsion systems selected. Efficient systems (high Isp) will
have lower propellant requirements than inefficient systems. To demonstrate this
effect, propellant mass ratios were calculated for the three LRU concepts developed
by this study. Earth launch (SDV with chemical propellants) and in-space transfer
between LEO and GEO, LLO and GEO, and L 2 and GEO (ion electric CCTV with
4-147
• Lower energy requirements for delivery of material
from moon to GEO than from earth to GEO
• Substantially reduced propellant requirements

• Reduced depletion of earth resources
•, 4,380 mlsec _VE

_=3.5
_VM
2
EE 1/= m AV E
GEO %,,.
/" ,_V E = 15.270 \_. EM = lhm _V i_!= 12.2
/ mlsec \
/ \
Propellant E
= 10 -- 150
Propellant M
depending on transporatation
system elements selected
Figure 4-34. LRU transportation benefit.
oxygen propellant) were common to all three concepts. The vehicles employed for
lunar surface to LLO transfer differ; electrically driven catapult for Concept B,
conventional hydrogen/oxygen for Concept C, and aluminum/oxygen rocket for Con-
cept D. The earth/lunar propellant delivery ratios for these three concepts are;
LRU Concept B 146:1, LRU Concept C 27:1, and LRU Concept D 10.5:1. An im-
portant ancillary criterion is propellant ori_o-in.Concept C has a higher earth/lunar
propellant delivery ratio than Concept D, but some of C's lunar escape propellant
must come from earth (hydrogen), while all of D's lunar escape propellant is de-
rived from lunar resources.
Transp(>rtation options are characterized by mission geometry (surface site locations,
space facility orbits, and transfer modes) and the launch and transfer vehicles
selected. All earth and lunar sites, orbits, and transfer modes have been selected
for maximum compatibility with the particular transportation option, considering
launch/maneuver frequency and energy requirements. :Preliminary site Selections,
largely based on current SPS and LRU literature, are shown in Table 4-48. Energy
4-148
Table 4-48. Sites assumed for definition of LRU Transportation Systems.
Earth Launch
Site KSC
LEO
Circular, 477.8 km altitude, 31. 606 deg inclination
GEO Circular, 35786 km altitude, 0.0 deg inclination
LLO
Circular 50 km altitude, lunar equatorial
( _ 5 deg inclination to ecliptic)
Lunar Base
Near lunar equator, 33.1 deg east longitude
SMF Concept C&D at GEO
Concept B at 2:1 resonnance orbit
Raw Material
Catch Site
Lunar libration point L2
requirements in the form of the ideal vehicle &V required for transfer between these
sites and/or orbits are contained in Table 4--2 on page 4-13. Definitions of vehicle
stage efficiencies are also included in Table 4-2.
Figure 4-35 depicts the seven principal transportation routes and the vehicles required
for each LRU concept. A total of 10 basic vehicle types are identified to satisfy these
requirements.
The first step in defining transportation elements is vehicle sizing. This is accom-
plished by considering interrelated parameters of vehicle payload capacity, launch
frequency, and total fleet requirements. The given information is total annual
payload for each transfer leg to support construction of one 10 GW SPS. This infor-
mation is contained in Figures 4-4, 4-6, and 4-7 on pages 4-18 through 4-22 for LRU
Concepts B, C and D respectively. The annual payload is calculated by multiplying
the quantities/10 units of SPS shown in these figures by one tenth the SPS mass, which
is equal to 9,838 T for an SPS constructed using 89.6 percent lunar materials. Vehicle
and fleet sizing {Section 4.6.1) is followed by individual vehicle descriptions in
4-149
f (_)- --" _ -,.7,z .._
I GEO
TOSMk L1 @------__)
Cargo Transter Personnel Transfer

Vehicle LRU Concept Vehicle LRU Concept
(_ EARTH -- LEO SDV B C D SS or SDV B C D

(_) LEO -- GEO or SMF COTV B C D POTV B C D
(_) LEO- LLO COTV B C D POTV B C D
LLO -- LUNAR SURFACE PL'I'V (Down) B PLTV B
LTV C LTV C
LDR D LDR D
(,_ LLO -- GEO or SMF COTV C D POTV B C D
(6-) LUNAR SURFACE -- L 2 Mass driver B (LLO Io L 2 /
_j L 2 -- SMF Calcher/TT B POTV \maintenance/ B
V
Figure 4-35. Transportation Routes and Vehicle Requirements.
Section 4.6.2.
4.6.1 Vehicle and Fleet Sizing - Tables 4-49 through 4-52 present vehicle and fleet
size information for each transportation element within the earth baseline and each
LRU option. As noted, this information is predicated on the construction of one SPS
per year; considerations associated with other construction rates are discussed later.
The fleet and vehicle size requirements have been derived from a variety of para-
meters with the primary driver being the material transportation flow requirements
presented in Section 4.2. For Concept A, Table 4-49, the vehicle sizes were set by
Reference 55, but the fleet sizes were adjusted on the basis of the material flow
requirements. In addition, Reference 55 included spares in its fleet sizing, while
Table 4-49, as well as the other LRU concept tables, does not.
4-150
Certain vehicles associated with the lunar resource utilization options are sized by
the basic assumptions of the LRU concept. For instance, the use of an SDV based on a
cargo-only version of the current Shuttle system combined with the B-1TE booster sets
the size of that vehicle. In the same manner, the use of the current Space Shuttle
with the 75 passenger module and the use of that module throughout for personnel
transfer, dictates the size of the POTV and PLTV. The remaining vehicles have been
sized by guidelines that are somewhat more arbitrary; i. e., minimum of two trips per
year on COTV legs, maximum of 6000 thrusters per COTV, etc. These assumptions,
which apply to Tables 4-49 through 4-52, are as follows:
1. One SPS per year construction rate.
2.
Concept A, Table 4-49, vehicle sizes are set by Reference 55, but the
fleet sizes are adjusted for material flow requ{rements presented in
Figure 4- 2.
e
N.._ospares.
4. SDV size set by Appendix E Section E. 2, Volume III.
5. All personnel transfers are accomplished with the 75 passenger module desigmed
to fit within the Shuttle payload bay.
e
Minimum of two trips per year on each COTV leg.
7. Maximum of 6000 thrusters per COTV.
8. LTV and LDR sized for 1 launch per earth day.
9. No unscheduled down time except mass driver catapult which allows 10% un--
scheduled maintenance for the solar powered version, and 25% scheduled and
unscheduled maintenance for the nuclear powered version.
10. COTV attitude control propellant is 12.5_ of main propellant, does not con-
tribute to AV, and is consumed at a steady rate.
Effect of Construction Rate
Changes in the assumed SPS construction rate from one per year will impact the dif-
ferent transportation elements in various ways, which depend on the assumptions utilized
initially. Where the vehicle size has been set and full utilization is occurring, such as
4.151
Table 4-49. Concept A Vehicle and Fleet Sizing.
Trip
Vehicle Quant Total Days Recm'd
Item Capacity /10 Units Quant/SPS Flights Include Fleet
Leg Vehicle (T or People ) of sps (T or People) /sps iTurnaround Size Notes
Cargo ItLLV 424T 15.14 147,691T 3,49 5 Does not agree with 391 fligh
E arth -_LEO, specified in JSC document
(Reference 1)
Segments COTV 1 Segment 10. 005 97,599T 8 <180 See
One for each seg_nent
+IS 8700T × 6 Note one way only, not reused
LEO -_GEO 23,700T x 2
Personnel SS 75 540/rotat 2160 32 15 2 8 per rotation
E arth--,-LEO i
Persolmel POTV 75 60/rotat 240 4 7 1 1 per rotation
I,EO_*-GEO
i i i • i i i i i i
t
b-a
b0
1 SP=97,550T
1 SPS/Year Rate
(
! ili i i i i
rn!l
Table 4-50. Concept B Vehicle and Fleet Sizing.
Trip
Leg Vehicle (T or People) of SPS (T or People) /sps Turnaround Size Notes
Cargo _DV 200.9T 1.38 13,576T 68 7 2
Earth LEO
Prop+ LS 0.006 *Eliminate this vehicle, mo_
COTV 1
LEO -_GEO propellant and life support
supplies via COTV 3 and CO'] 4

0
E lnpty COTV 1
G EO _-LEO
H2+LS COTV 2 118T .024 236T < 180 2 240 Thrusters/Vehicle

I EO _-LLO
Empty COTV <180
2
LLO -*-LEO
t
}.a 6578T 1. 337 13,153T <180 ~ 2740 Thrusters/Vehicle
SPS+Chem COTV 3
+LS+II 2
LEO -_SMF
3260T 0.67 6,591T <180
O2 COTV3
SM F-_LEO
32,865T 70.022 98,596T 3 <180 ~ 5880 Thrusters/Vehicle
SIS¢O_LS COTV 4
+lI 2
SM F -_ G EO
Empty COTV 4 <180 This COTV may be sized to
GEO-,-SMF
move even smaller segments
if desired
Personnel SS 75 3042/yr 41 14 46 Shuttle flights req'd to
E artl_--LEO match summation of POTV
flights.
Table 4-50. Concept B Vehicle and Fleet Sizing (Continued).
Trip

Personnel 75 36/rotat 216/yr 6 1 per rotation
POTV 1
LEO---GEe
Personnel 75 1365/ 2730/yr 38 9 1 19 per rotation
POTV 2
LEO_SM F rotat
Personnel 75 48/rotat 96/yr 2 9 1 1 per rotation
POTV 3
LEO-_LI£)
Personne I PLTV _>48 48/rotat 96/yr 2 7 1 1 per rotation
L l_)_-Moon (Use 75 man module)
Lunar TT 85,000T 17.15 168,722T 7
Soil
L2-*- SM F
b-i
el
Catcher TT 85,600 ~10,000T
Propellant
SMF-b-L 2
i
Lunar Mass ~2.5 kg/ 17.15 168,722T 67.5 NA Solar powered catapult asstrr
Soil Driver BAG 106 320 hr operation every 28 da
Moon -_L 2 Catapul! (~1.4 kg/ BAGS *(Nuclear) Full time operafl(
BAG) * (120.5
× 106) *
Lunar Mass 85,000T 17.15 168,722T 2 NA
Soil Catcher
L2
1 SPS = 98,380T
1 SPS/Year Rate
C:: .C: (
Table 4-51. _ Concept C Vehicle and Fleet Sizing.
I Trip
Item Capacity /10 Units Quant/sps iFlights Include Fleet

of SPS /sps Turnaround Size No_s
Leg Vehicle (T. 9 r People) (T or People)
200.9T 2.41 23,710T 118 7 3
Cargo SDV
Earth -_LEO
1. 076 10,586T <180 2 ~1120 Thrusters/Vehicle
5,293T
SPS+ LS+II 2 COTV 1
LEO-_-GEO
<.180
COTV 1
1. 291 12,701T <180 5 ~ 5512 Thrusters/Vehicle

Chem-t LS 2,540T
COTV 2
+H 2
LEO =_ LLO
1987T 1. 010 9,936T <180
t COTV 2
9. 050 <180 ~ 5400 Thrusters/Vehicle

29,678T 89,034T
SPS40 2 COTV 3
LLO _GEO
<180
Empty COTV 3
GEO ,-LLO
310T 11.41 112,252T 365 7 Down payload capability of
LTV
SPS.IO 2 10% × Up payload for IS, Cb em
Moon-_LIZ) & Personnel
SS 75 3930/yr 53 14 56 Shuttle flights required k

Personnel
match summation of POTV
Earth-LEO
flights
1 200/yr 18 7 3 per rotation
Personnel POTV 1 75 200/rotat
I.EO_GEO
Personnel pOTV 7s 136S/ro/-t .... 2730/yr 38 19 per rotation
2
LEOn-LIar)
1 SPS = 983380T
1 SPS/Year Rate
Table 5-52. Concept D Vehicle and Fleet Sizing.
Trip
Cargo SDV 200.9 T 1.54 15,151 T 76 2

Earth-_-LEO
5293T 1.076 10,586T 2 <180 2 _1120 Thrusters/Vehicle
SPS+I_S+It 2 COTV i
I:EO_GEO
Empty COTV 1
GEO---I,EO
Chem+ LS 1,381T 0.421 4,142T 3 <180 3 _5500 Thrusters/Vehicle
COTV 2
tt 2
LEO---LLO
2,328T 0.71 6,985T <180
COTV 2
t
ba
O1
29,678T 9.05 89,034T 3 <180 3 5400 Thrusters/Vehicle
SPS+O 2 COTV 3
I,LO----GEO
Empty <180
COTV 3
GEO --_ LLO
LDR 300T 10.99 1(t8, 120"1' 365 :Down payload capability of 10
Ix Up payload for L.S., Chem &
Personnel
Personnel SS 75 3930/yr 53 .14 2 56 Shuttle flights required to
Earth._LEO match summation of I_)TV
flights
Personnel 75 200/rotat 1 200/yr 18 3 per rotation
POTV 1
I:EO-_-GEO
Personnel 75 1365/rota 2730/yr 38 19 per rotation
I_)TV 2
LEO _ LLO
1 SPS = 98,380T
1 SPS/Year Rate
C.. (I (
z
r-
the HLLV and ST)V, fleet size may be directly ratioed to construction rate. Where
vehicle size is set but under utilization is occurring, such as the Concept A POTV, the
construction rate may be increased to some extent without a change in fleet size.
In cases where the vehicle/fleet have been sized by more arbitrary guidelines, it would
be necessary to re-evaluate _he guidelines. For example, in Concept C, if the con-
struction rate were doubled, COTV 1 would double in size with the same fleet require-
ment, COTV 3 would probably remain the same size with a doubled fleet, but for COTV 2
strong consideration should be given to relaxing the 6000 thruster limit. Similarily, the
LTV Concept C or LDR Concept D fleets would be doubled to fourteen for a construction
rate of 2 per year. If the rate were increased to 3 per year, the fleet would probably
be maintained at fourteen, _while vehicle size was increased to approximately 450 T
payload capacity. ,-
4.6.2 Vehicle Descriptions - The following tex-t and LRU Element Data Sheets include
descriptions of the various transportation elements required by each of the SPS con-
struction options. In some cases the vehicles are well defined in current literature and
their description has been obtained from these sources. When e:dsting published in-
formation was not suitable for LRU element definition, the data required was developed
by study personnel.
a. Heavy Life Launch Vehicle (I-1-LLI0
The heavy lift launch vehicle required by Concept A would be a totally new vehicle deve-
loped for this purpose. The vehicle's general characteristics are shown in Figure 4-36.
The HLLV is a two--stage fully reusable vehicle. The booster incorporates airbreathing
engines for flyback capability to permit its return to the launch site, while the Orbiter
glides back to the launch site.
b. Personnel Launch Vehicle (PLV)
The personnel launch vehicle required by Concept A is based upon the current Space
Shuttle Transportation System (SSTS). Vehicle general characteristics are shown in
Figure 4-37. 4-157

Figure 4--36.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV)
Transportation
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions 400 T Payload to LEO-
Two Stage fully reusable
Non- linear --
Revised cargo
l$_Sketch {Include Major Dimensions) __:, , _ _ J_----_-_-.. m
requirements are
best accommodated
by scheduling
additional or fewer
HLLV launches
/
',=-.LH2. ;i
...._,'i!_',, I£V2 ..,
"' ",,-,,,_
",,"i ,
"_i . .Lc,,,
"-,, "
_T.AN, K _ TAb,IK ._ !" :TAN
f i :
k,.[_:--'_ ,-, _'_.,_ : . : , , _ i
N _--_, ___ _ r.... _ _ I
I'-- 80,6m ORBITER .!_ BOOSTER 73.8m I
PHYSICAL CHAI_ACTERISTICS: 5200 m3

Total Volume Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight ~ 1,400T Array Area N/A ['7 Shuttle
Gross Weight ll,040T Assembly Location HLLV

Throughput N/A Initial Earth COTV
Consumable Wt. ~ 9,200T Radiator Area N/A _ SDV
Storage Cap. N/A Final Earth LTV
PEB FOR]%_ANCE CHARACTEB;

Power Req'd N/A Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level 177 × 106/29×106N Efficiency N/A _ Primary
Specific Impulse3473/4462 N-s/kg
Acceleration _ 3_ Waste Heat N/.A. _ 2 Supervisory
Payload Cap. 424T Flow Rates N/A Ground
Consumables LO_/CH_ & LOo/LH _ Support
Transfer Time ~ 1 hr Useful output N/A Total
Data Source{s) Aviation Week 17 July 1978/1-2_78 JSC SPS Concept Evaluation Pro_ram/
Preliminary Baseline Concept

i
C. W. Shawl Reviewed by
Prepared by
4-158
Figure 4-37.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
i =
Material Processing Element Definition Personnel Launch Vehicle (PLV)
Transportation
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Current Orbiter, smaller ET,
LO2/CH 4 Series Burn Booster. Orbiter modified as 'Bus'
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) Scalthg Relationships
Non- linear --
4 LOX/CH 4 engines -- Revised personnel
Modified Shuttle requirements are best
,,_56 tons payload (ETR) accommodated by
scheduling additional
I
or fewer PLV
/ launches
69.2 m
Total Volume 300 m3
Delivery Vehicle
Inert Wei_-gat 265T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. _- 2074T Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 2375T Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
PEB FORMANCE CHARACTER: N/A

Thrust Level 3S×106/6. 3x106N
Efficiency Primary
Specific Impulse 3473/4462 N-s/kg Consumables LO2/CH_ & LO2/LH 2 Support
Acceleration _ 3g Waste Heat .... Supervisory
Payload Cap. 36T Flow Rates N/A Ground
Transfer Time ~1 hr Useful output N/A
Total
Data Source(s) 1-25-78 JSC SPS Concept Evaluation Program/Preliminary Baseline Concept
Prepared by C. W. Shawl Reviewed by

4-159
The following modifications to the current SSTSare required for its use as the PLV: V
• The two solid rocket boosters (SRB's) are replaced by a new single liquid
propellant (LO2/CH4) booster. This booster would operate in a series burn

mode rather than the parallel burn mode used with the SRBs. The booster would
be reusable, following its ballistic return and recovery.
• A smaller external tank for the Orbiter LO2/LH 2 propellants would be used.
• The Orbiter would be modified to serve as a 'bus' by use of a 75 passenger payload
bay module. This module would be transferrable to the POTV for transport to
GEO. (See Paragraph e. )
c. Personnel Orb i..ta.1 Transfer Vehicle (POTV)
• The personnel orbital transfer vehicle required by Concept A would be a totally new
vehicle developed for this purpose. The vehicle general characteristics are shox_ in
Fig-are 4-38.
The POTV is a two stage, fully reusable LO2/LH 2, vehicle using "common" stages;
i. e., the structure and tankage are identical,with the first stage having four engines and
the second stage two engines. In operation, the first stage injects the vehicle into a
highly elliptical transfer orbit; the first stage retains sufficient propellant to re-
circularize itself at low earth orbit (LEO). The second stage completes the transfer
to geosynchronous earth orbit. It also carries sufficient propellant for transfer back
to and recircularization at LEO. The 75 passenger payload bay module mentioned in
the personnel launch vehicle section would be transferred complete from the PLV to
the POTV for transport to GEO. (See Para_raph e. )
d. Cargo Orbit Transfer Vehicle (COTV)
The cargo orbit transfer vehicle utilized for Concept A is a "payload powered" ion
electric type; i. e., electrical power for the ion thrusters would come from partially
deployed solar cell arrays on the SPS se_nents. The general characteristics of the
4--160
Figure 4-38.
V GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Personnel Orbital Transfer Vehicle
Transportation (POTV)
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions LEO ---GEO Transfer of 75 passengers
Fully reusable vehicle, with propellant depot in LEO only

8m DIAMETER Non- Linear --
Revised personnel
_s T.R_STE_S_ \._ XNc4sKLSF) 2_0KNC45
K -'8_ requirements are
\ \ r OOCKING & SERVICE best accommodated by
or fewer POTV flights
,_, ' '' ' I _ 1,=i-_-'r_
LO2/LH 2 TANK j ,, 21 M
(4 PLACES) l
42 M
5T _,GE 2 STAG¢_ 1 .t
Total Volume *Unconstrained Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 34.5T Array Area N/A [--] Shuttle
Consumable Wt. 460.5T
Throughput N/A Initial Earth COTV
Radiator Area _/A _ SDV
Storage Cap. NIA Final LEO LTV
PER FOR? :ANCE CHARACTER;

Power Req'd N/A Personnel Rcq'ts.
800 kN/400 kN
Thrust Level Efficiency N/A _ Primary
Specific Impulse4630/4630 N-s/kg
Acceleration < lg Waste Heat ,.'¢'/A z Supervisory
Payload Cap. *65TUp/41T Dwn Flow Rates N/A Ground
Consumables LOn/LH- _ Support
Transfer Time "6 hr LEO-,-GEO Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) 1-25-78 JSC SPS Concept Evaluation Program/Preliminary Baseline
Concept
Prepared by C.W. Shawl Reviewed by
4-161
COTV are shown in Figure 4.39. Since there are two different types of SPSsegments,
V
there are also two different COTV configurations. The six non-antenna segmentswould
utilize four panels of 600thrusters eachwith 3,000 T of propellart while the two antenna
segmentswould utilize four panels of 1600thrusters each and 8,400 T of propellant•
The COTV hardware is not reused.
e. Passenger Module and POTV Crew Control Module (PM)
The passenger module is designed to support 75 personnel within the Space Shuttle
Orbiter cargo bay for transport into LEO and return to earth. The passenger module
is configured so that it may be removed from the payload bay in LEO and integrated with
the POTV and POTV crew control module. In this configuration, the passenger module
can be transported to GEO. General descriptions of the passenger module and crew
control module are _ven in Figure 4-40• This passenger logistics equipment is em-
ployed for all three LRU system concepts in addition to the Concept A SPS Earth Base-
line.
V
Earth launch vehicles considered for cargo transfer in lunar resource utilization con-
cepts are the Space Shuttle (SS), a shuttle derived vehicle (SDV) with reusable glideback
booster, and the new development fully reusable heavy lift launch vehicle (HLLV)
described in Paragraph a and Figure 4-36. Comparison of earth cargo vehicle launch
frequency requirements for the SPS earth baseline and LRU Concept C to support con-
struction of one SPS per year is shown in Figure 4-41. Also shown are total earth
launch vehicle related program costs for constructing 30 S'PS, assuming cargo require-
ments as defined by LRU Concept C. This data incidates that either the SDV or I-I'LLV
would be suitable to support this activity level, but that shuttle is too payload limited
for cost effectiveness. Therefore, we have specified that all threeLunar Resource
Utilization concepts 0B, C and D) conceptually use a shuttle derived vehicle for earth
launch of materials and propellants. The SDV is based on the current Space Shuttle
Transportation System (SSTS) with modifications as described in Paragraph f.
4-162
Figure 4-39.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Cargo Orbit Transfer Vehicle

!
Transportation (COTVJ
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions SPS delivered to GEO in 8/'nodules,
6 without MPTS antennas, 2 with
Sketch (Include Major Dinmnsions) "THRUSTER Scaling Relationships

DEPLOYED STOWED --PROP. _. MODULE Non-linear due to
- -, (4 PLACES)
TAN KS occultation and solar
ARRAY--_ "_RRAY
cell degradation effect
-c_ i_iiisiiiii_isi
.-.-.-°...°.°..!
•-o%,...%o,..
c.- ..... ,
' ",] !iI , :!!!!!iiii!i!ii
on trip
revisett
time
payload
for
masses. Two COTV

_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
,....%.....
I I
..-..........,
,E:::::;:::'::::,
......%,,o%
sizes are shown in
,:-;.:.:.:.:.:.
data below.
!i!s!!?islsl
, 1i i1
I _;i;!;i;i;i;!ii!
i:2:_:!:i:i:i:i
W/O
600 Thrusters/Module
Antenna
L E
I, i, j I]
:':i:::::::::
'":'":':':"
i i!iilliiiiiii\, (1600 Thrusters/Modu

[3 W/Antenna)
Inert Weight 1,100T (2,900T) Array Area 3. 65 km2(9. 84 km z)
Consumable Wt. 3,000T (8,400T) Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 12,800T (35,000T) Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final Orbit LTV
PER FORMANCE CHARACTEII :

Power Req'd 300 MW(810MW) Personnel Req'.'.s.
Thrust Level 4500N(12200N) Efficiency 75% _ Primary
Specific Impulse 68642N-s/kg
Acceleration 4×10- 5g Waste Heat N/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. 8,700T (23,700T) Flow Rates N/A Ground
Consumables AR & LO2/LH? _ Support
Transfer Time ~ 180 days Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) 1-25-78 JSC SPS Concept Evalua_on Pm gram/Preliminary Baseline Concept
4-163
Figure 4-40.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
V
Element Definition Passenger Module and POTV Crew
Material Processing
Transportation Control Module
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions 75 Passengers plus 2 person crew
Approximately linear
_, ..... 16.48
except 75 person
11.66 module is designed
for Earth launch in
Shuttle cargo bay.
Other sizes _vil] be
<',j II
,H inefficient for use
_-ith this launch
L,,I(- ..... i:/• vehicle.

/
CREW 75 PERSON J
COM PAR TME h"r PASSENGER MODULE
4.0T GROSS 23.0T GROSS
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume --200 M3

Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 14 T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. _3T Radiator Area N/C% SDV
Gross Weight 27 T Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final LEO LTV
PER FOR_IANCE CHARACTER:

Power Req'd 75 kW Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level N/A Efficiency N/A
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables 6 Day SU_Dp_]y Support
Acceleration _ Sg Waste Heat N/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. --10T Flow Rates N/A _ Ground
Primary
Transfer Time ,_72 Hours Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) Solar Power Satellite Concept Fvaluatlon Activities l_ePort,
July 76 to June 77 Vol £ (JSC Red Book) (Rcf 21
Prepared by E. H. Bock Reviewed by
4-164
We have also proposed that all three Lunar Resource Utilization concepts use the
current Space Shuttle Transportation System as a personnel launch vehicle, Al-
though personnel transfer requirements are small compared to car-go requi.rements,
use of an unmodified Shuttle as a PLV is fairly expensive. We recommend that sub-
sequent studies consider replacing the Space Shuttle with an SDV version for personnel
launch also.
HLLV r ,, "_ SDV SS
I_--_X
,, o,
CARGO
DELIVERY
VEIilCLES
Reusability Both stages Booster & OPM Orbiter

P/L capability 424 T 200.9 T 29.5 T
.Launch freq (A) -_1 per day 2 per day -,,-14 per day
(1 SPS per yr) (C) -,,,1 per week 1 every 3rd day _2 per day
Cost 13DT&E 11.15B 6.85B N/A
Prod & Ops (C) 21 95B 50.85B 481.85B
Total Program (C) 33.05B 57.65B 481.85B
Figure 4-41. Earth launch vehicle comparative assessment.
f. Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV)
All three of the lunar resource utilization concepts (]3, C and D ) conceptually use the
same Shuttle derived vehicle for earth launch of materials and propellants. The
general configuration of the SDV is shown in Figure 4-42. The SDV is based on the
current Space Shuttle Transportation System (SSTS) with the following modifications:
4-165
Figure 4-42.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
V
Element Definition Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) for
Transportation Cargo Delivery

-t Material Processing
hffrastructure
Sizing Assumptions LO2/Propane Version B17E-1
Booster _,ith _Orbiter'Cargo Version
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) j,_
Non Iinear-
Revised cargo
" I-- * '' .

requirements are bes_
accornrnodated by
or fewer SDV launche.,
POD
,I09.7m . !
\ I
ro27 . - PROPAh'E
-.=#
_' "_£. .... "L_L _ _ t _....... ;', :3-
EXTERNAL TANK " GDC BI7E-I
BOOSTER (REVISED) \
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Total Volume 590m3 Delivery Vehicle

Inert Weight 261T/91T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. 2. 932T/704T Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 4,196T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput N/A Initial E arth _ COTV
Shuttle
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER: Power Req'd I',VA Personnel Req'ts.

Thrust Level 53×106/6.3×106N Efficiency Primary
Specific Impulse 3314/4462 N-s/kg Consumables LOT/C3H 8 & LO,/LH 2 Support
Acceleration _ 3g Waste Heat - N/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. 200.9T Flow Rates Ground
Transfer Time ,_1 hr Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) Preliminary Study of Performance and FeasibiliW of a Heaw payload
Shuttle Derived Vehicle SDV, Appendix E.2

rt_v
4-166
o The solid rocket boosters (SRB's) are replaced by a liquid propellant (LO2/
C3H 8) booster. This booster is a lox/propane version the GDC B17E-1 fly-
back booster from the SSTS Phase I study. The booster would not have air-
breathing flyback capability but would land down range and be ground trans-
ported back to the launch area.
• The external tank would be modified to accept boost loads through the base ring
rather than the current SRB side attachment points.
• The Orbiter would be replaced by a cargo pod and a ballistic returnable pro-
pulsion module.
Further definition of the SDV is contained in Appendix E of Volume III.
g° Space Shuttle (SS)
All three Lunar Resource utilization options would use the current Space Shuttle
Transportation System as a personnel launch vehicle. The only modification would
be the fitting of a 75 passenger 'bus' module in the SSTS cargo bay. This module
would be transferred complete from the Shuttle to the POTV for personnel move-
ments. Figure 4-40 defines the passenger module. The Space Shuttle configuration
description is included for reference in Figure 4-43.
h. Personnel Orbital Transfer Vehicle (I:DTV)
All three lunar resource utilization options employ the same personnel orbital transfer
vehicle. The general configuration of the I:_OTV is shown in Figure 4-44.
This I_TV is a single stage vehicle. To minimize vehicle size, propellant depots sup--
plied by COTV will be established at both ends of each run. The POTV is sized for the
maximum AV transfer leg, which is LEO-----GEO, and operates off-tanked on less
demanding transportation routes. This allows a common vehicle to be used for many
routes including LEO----LLO and LEO-.,-SMF°
In operation, the complete 75 passenger personnel module will be transferred at LEO
from the Shuttle Orbiter cargo bay to the POTV for transportation to the desired end point.
See Paragraph e and Figure 4-40 for a description of the passenger module.
4-167
Figure 4-43.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
V
Material Processing Element Definition Space Shuttle (SS) Personnel
Transportation Launch Vehicle
Infrastructure
Sizing. Assumptions Vehicle currently being developed
Non Linear-
Revised personnel
requirements are
best accomn-o dated
by scheduling
additional or fewer
EXTERNAL
SS launches
TANK
8.4m
t
I--
SRB
3
Total Volume 300 m Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 277T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. 1727T Radiator Area N/A SDV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. _/A Final Earth LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTEB;
Thrust Level 30.3xl_)6/6,3x106N Efficiency N/A
Specific Impulse2SSY_62 N- s/k_ Consumables Solids & LO£/LH 2 Support
Acceleration _ 3g Waste Heat N/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. 29.5T Flow Rates N/A _ Ground
Primary
Transfer Time ,-- 1 hr Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) JSC 07700 Vol XIV Space Shuttle Payload Accommodations
4-168
Figure 4-44.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
[, ,;,} Material Processing Element Definition Personnel Orbital Transfer Vehicle

{
Transportation (POTV)
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions LEO ---GEQ Transfer of 75 passengers.
Single stage LO_/LH_ vehicle with Dropellant depc_ af .ll _P_n.Hans._

z
Sketch (Include Major Dimenslons) Scaling Relationships

Approximately linear,
but POTV is sized for
75 passenger transfer
DOGKING & SERVICE [AIN ENGINES'(2) module plus 2 person
67 kN (15 klbf) crew control module
SECTION
_} LH 2 TAN K
{
14.0m ..... - [
{
{
I
P H%'SICA L C HARA CTERISTICS:

Total Volume Unconstrained Delivery Vehicle
:'nert Weight 6.7T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. 59. 4T Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 88.2T Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
PER FORMANCE CHARACTER ;

Thrust Level 133 kN
Efficiency , N/A
Specific Impulse 4508 N- s/k_ Consumables LO_/LH. Support
Acceleration lg Waste Heal N_/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. 27T Flow Rates. N}A _ Ground
Primary
Transfer Time -.,72 hrs Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(sl GDC Sizing Information and Vehicle Synthesis Programs
:_,_:a _j C.W. Shawl Reviewed by
4-169
I. Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicle (COTV)
V
The three lunar resource utilization options all conceptually employ ion electric cargo
orbital transfer vehicles. The general configuration of these COTVs is shown in
Figure 4-45. Unlike the Concept A ion COTV, these vehicles will include their own
solar cell array and will be reusable, Lunar derived oxygen will be utilized as the
propellant.
The performance and sizing of these COTVs has been based on the ion thruster character-
istics provided by NASA-Lewis Research Center in Reference 57. The solar array
performance was conservatively assumed for sizing purposes to be 150 watts/kilogram
and 100 watts/square meter. Reference 57 data is included in Appendix E. 3.
Table 4-53 presents payload, weight and array area data for the COTVs. These data
are based on the thruster characteristics of Reference 57, the noted solar array per-
formance, and the assumptions noted previously for Tables 4-49 through 4-52. The
infor_]ation has not been adjusted to the modular concept noted below. By definition,
leg 1 is the outbound leg from the servicing facility and leg 2 is the return trip.
In order to meet the varied requirements of different transportation legs at minimuvn
cost, it is assumed that a modular concept would be used for the COTVs with common
building blocks of thruster groups, solar array panels, and propellant tanks. The
thrusters described in Reference 57 are circular with a diameter of 100 cm.
These could be conveniently arranged into a matrix to form a square module.
For instance, a module of 100 thrusters (10x 10) might be considered; this
package would be approximately 11 meters on each side. The module would weigh
approximately 6, 76_} kg exclusive of propellant tankage or solar array, but including
all ancillary equipment.
J. Lunar Transfer Vehicle (LTV)

:7- _.
Lunar resource utilization Concept C requires a vehicle for the transfer of cargo and
4-170
Figure 4-4S.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Element Definition Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicle
Transportation (COTV)
_ Material Processing
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions See Table 4-53 for vehicle sizin_
F; 7==
5400 THRUSTERS/ Scaling Relationships

Sketch (Include Major Dimensions6.
Im Di2×
54 CLUSTERS OF
16.0m LGT. Basically linear-
100 EA
however, an
_] , , LO 2 TAN_,:S (6) arbitrary 6000
@ EA
il / l ACS PFG thruster limit _vas
l_"--_ I!-'--- _L=_-![=-"==_ ; A /-COiN ER used as a sizing
j I
t........=_A=-- ----J
I c'--m"J-==-_Jk----z
constraint.
_-:-"-'_!s:_J_-_;:'-y:'_'_;._- 28, Om
LLi'I i ":i, _L_ JL.j__,_

121. Om
!I Ii!!
_ 21 _ _ ,I-
33.5m
SOLAR
'
I
J
PAYLOAD
'
1
I0.8m
VIEW A-A
ARRAY (DEF)
LH 2 SPHERE *Equivalent
Inert Weight 8S0 kg/Thruster Array Area 1172 mZ/Thruster
Consumable Wt. See Table 4.6-6 Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight Inert + Prop + P/L Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
PER FORMANCE CHARACTEI_:

Power Req'd 117 kW/Thruster Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level 2.03 N/Thruster
Efficiency 63% [---7 Primary
Specific Impulse 64425 N- s/kg*
Acceleration See Table 4.6-6
Waste Heat _ N/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. See Table 4.6- 6 Flow Rates N/A Ground
Consumables LO_ Main LOz/LH2AC_ Support
Transfer Time < 180 days/leg Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) Electric PropuIston System for LRU for Space Construetton_ Memo to
E. H. Rock from NASA LeRC Dated 27 June 1978. See Appendix E.
4-171
Table 4-53. Ion Electric COTV Characteristics.
!
Initial Total
LRU Thruster Thrust/ Payload Weight Propellant Array Area
oncept Vehicle i Inert
Quantity Weight Leg (T} fT) On 2)
I(LEO -,-LLO) 118
24o 1 × 10-4 204T 173T 0.28 x 106
COTV 2
2(LIX) -_- LEO)
3295.5T 1 I
B 2740 5 x 10 -5 I(SMF---LEO)
2329T 4625T 3.2× 106
COTV3
2 (I,.EO -*- SMF) 6576.5T
-5 1 (SMF-_GEO) 32865.3T
COTV
4 5880 3×10 4998T 2687T 6.9× 106
2_GEO -_SMF) 0
-5 1(LEO-,-- G EO) 5293T I
1120 3x10 952T 1468T 1.3× 106
COTV 1
2(GEO -*--I,EO) 0
-4 1 (LLO-_ LEO) 1987T
C COTV 5512 lxlO 4685T 4735T 6.5 × 106
2
b-a,
2(LEQ -_-LIK)} 2540T
-5 1 (LLO-_ GEO) 29678T 6
5400 3x 10 4590T 2965T
COTV 3 6.3x 10
2(GEO -*- I,LO) 0
-5 1 (LEO -_-G EO) 5293T
1120 3x10 952T 1468T 1.3× 106
COTV 1
2(G EO -*-- LEO) 0
-4 I (LLO -,-- LEO) 2328T 6
D 5500 1×10 1675T 4378T 6.4×10
COTV 2
2(LEO -_ LID) 1381T
-5 I(LLO--GEO) 29678T
5400 3x10 4590T 2965T 6.3 x 106
COTV 3
2(GEO _- LLO) 0
.
personnel between the lunar surface and low lunar orbit. The general configuration of
this LTV is shown in Figure 4-46. The vehicle is a single stage fully reusable chemical
rocket using LO2/LH 2 propellants. In operation, round trip hydrogen will be loaded at
the low lunar orbit (LLO) propellant depot while round trip oxygen would be loaded on the
lunar surface. Due to this staggered propellant loading operation, the vehicle gross
weight does not correspond to a propellant tanks fully loaded condition.
As shown in Figure 4--46, the configuration chosen for the LTV is tandem liquid oxygen
and liquid hydrogen tanks with the cargo carried on two side mounted pods. The side
mount was chosen to minimize handling equipment requirements on the lunar surface.
For the approximately twenty flights required for crew-rotation each six month period,
the 75 passenger module will either be carried on a third set of side attach points, or in
tandem atop the hydrogen tank.
k. Lunar Derived Rocket (LDR)
Lunar resource utilization Concept D employs a lunar derived rocket for transfer of cargo
from the lunar surface to low lunar orbit. The general characteristics of this LDR are
shown in Figure 4-47. This is a single stage vehicle utilizing lunar derived aluminum
and oxygen as propellants. This concept is described in detail in Appendix E Section
E.4, Volume III.
The general configuration chosen for the I.DR consists of a central liquid oxygen tank
flanked by two powdered aluminum canisters. Cargo would be carried on two side mounted
pod_ located between the aluminum canisters. Side mounted aluminum canisters and cargo
pods were chosen to minimize material handling equipment requirements on the lunar
surface. For the approximately twenty flights required for each six month crew rotation
period, the 7S passenger module will be tandem mounted atop the oxygen tank. While
this will require lunar surface support equipment to reach the top of the vehicle, the loads
to be transferred are not high.
4-173
Figure 4-46.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Lunar Transfer Vehicle (LTV)
Transportation
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions 1 launch per Earth day with 310T
payload
iw
6, lm Basically linear
f
.... 6.1m
16 12
2m _ Lt
CARGO -- 2S 5m
TYP
} J
Consumable Wt. 242.3T (RT) Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 576.9T (Up) Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final T,FO LTV
PER FORMANCE
CHARACTEB: Power Req'd N/A Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level 2,930 MN Efficiency N/A
Specific Impulse 4508 N-s/k_ Consumables T_ /T._ Support
Acceleration O. 35 _ LO Waste Heat ]q/_ z Supervisory
Payload Cap. 310T (Up) Flow Rates N/A _ Ground
Primary
Transfer Time -1 hr Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) GDC Sizing Information and Vehicle Synthesis Programs
4-174
Figure 4-47.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
I Material Processing Element Definition Lunar Derived Rocket (LDR)

m
X__J Transportation
__]Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions 1 Launch per Earth day with 300T
Payload

Basically linear
__ 6.1m
6. lm
22.6m
LO 2
CARGO -CARGO
TYP i TYP
1
li" ' [ 25.6m
Total Volume Unconstrained Delive_ Vehicle
Consumable Wt. I, 017T (RT) Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 1,497T (Up,) Assembly Location HLLV
Shu_le
PER FORMANCE CHARACTER:

Thrust Level 7590 kN Efficiency N/A Primary
Specific Impulse 2500 N-s/k_ Consumables LOJA1 powder Support
Acceleration O. 35. _ LO Waste Heat N/S: Supervisory
Payload Cap. 300T (Up,) Flow Rates N/A Ground
Transfer Time -1 hr Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) Preliminary Investigation of the Feasibili_ of Chemical Rockets Using Lunar
Derived Propellants, J. W. Street-man: GDC. See AppendLx E.4.
4-175
I. Mass Driver Catapult
Lunar resource utilization Concept B utilizes a mass driver catapult to 'launch' lunar
material from the moon's surface. The mass driver is an electro-magnetic linear
accelerator. The general characteristics of the mass driver are described in Figure
4-48, these are based on information in References 58 and 59 sized for the current Concept
B as described in Figure 4-3 on page 4-17. The mass driver may be powered either by
a nuclear generating plant or a photovoltaic array. In the first case, scheduled
operation would be continuous except for periods when the mass catcher is off station
initiating cargo transfer and retrieving stores. In the latter case, scheduled operation
is limited to approximately 320 hours out of each 28 (earth) day lunar cycle.
In operation, lunar soil is loaded in fiberglass bags (derived from lunar material) which
are in turn loaded into the mass driver buckets. The buckets and payload are accelerated
to 'launch' velocity of 2335 m/sec with the bucket then decelerated and returned on a
parallel track. The payload continues its flight through electrostatic deflector correctors
for trajectory fine-adjustment. The mass driver operates at a rate of 5 bags per
second. The payload stream from the mass driver is retrieved by the mass catcher orbiting
about the moon's L 2 libration point.
m. Mass Catcher
Lunar resource utilization Concept B requires a mass catcher to capture the material
'launched' by the mass driver. The general configuration of the catcher is shown in
Figure 4.49. This cord2guration is based on information from Reference 60. The
catcher conceptually consists of a ring shaped structure which supports the mouth of a
conical kevlar bag. The ring structure contains all the catcher support systems such
as power, guidance, and propulsion. The catcher has been restzed for the currently defined
Concept B, as depicted in Table 4-50.

]
4-176
Figure 4-48.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Element Definition Mass Driver Catapult
Transportation
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions 5 Bags/Sec to an escape velocity of
2,335 m/s - power supply facility not included in rna_ estJrr_ t_
Scalthg Relationships
Some launch mass
Sketch (Include Major Dimensions) //_ \ variation can be
accommodated with
little or no facility
Oooe or ,e impact,
the
and/or
launch
by changing
payload
frequency
per ba_
A large mass increase
would require substam
tia] redesig-n or instal-
lation of a second
mass driver
\
Load
Inert Weight 1050T Array Area .33 × 106 m 2
Consumable Wt. _/A Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight I050T Assembly Location HLLV
Throughput 168.000 T/vr Initial Earth _ COTV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. _/_ Final Luna..r Surfaqe LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER: Power Req'd 35 MW Personnel Req'ts.

Thrust Level 17, _00_q Efficiency N/A _'] Primary
Acceleration 100 g Waste Heat N/A Supervisory

Payload Cap. 2.5 kg/bag Flow Rates N/A Ground
Specific Impulse N/A Consumables Electric Power _ Support
Data Source(s) Mass Driver Applications, Chi!ton, Hibbs, Kolrn. O'Neill & Phillips.
4-177
Figure 4-49.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Element Definition Mass Catcher

Material Processing
Transportation
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Two loads per year
Non- Linear -
Higher Cargo Rates
NUCLEAR FOWER-PLANT RADIATOR
would be handled by
increased load
ROTATINO,AO ..-'r'7'/
I \ , / '
frequency
_OMZTERS' __
ROTARY PELLET LAUNCHER SYSTEM (1 OF ,D:
3
Total Volume 334,000 m Delivery Vehicle
Consumable Wt. 4006T Radiator Area- ..N/A SDV
Gross Weight 86227T HLLV
Assembly Locati__nart h
Throughput N/A Initial _ COTV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final Lunar Orbit LTV
PEB FORMANCE
CHARACTEB: Power Req'd Personnel Req'ts.
Thrust Level 38.4 kN Efficiency [----'] Primary
Specific Impulse
Acceleration 10-ag Waste Heat N/A Supervisory
Payload Cap. 85,000T Flow Rates N/A Ground
3969 N- s/kg Consumables Sla_ Pellets _ Support
Transfer Time N/A Useful output _//_ Total
Data Source(s) Heppenheimer, T. A., The Lunar Mass Transport Problem in Space
Colonization ADS/AIAA Conf. Jackson Hole, WY, Sept 7-9, 1977

4-178
The mass catcher is one of the less well defined transportation elements _ith no histori-
cal background on which to draw. Several modifications to the configuration pre-
sented in Reference 60 may be desirable andwill require additional trade studies. Some
of these are:
.
Replacement of the rotary pellet launcher propulsion system with a liquid oxygen/
liquid hydrogen system or an electric ion system, or a combination of both. If
an electric system is chosen, the power source would probably remain nuclear as
there is considerable potential for damage to a solar array by the mass stream if
either stream or vehicle slips out of position.
o
Reference 60 holds the catcher rim stationary while spinning the bag: It may be
possible to spin the entire vehicle.
.
Conversely, it may be possible to contain captured lunar material by means other
than centrifugal force, thereby eliminating the need for spinning.
e
The catcher may be provided with sufficient AV to make the transfer to the space
manufacturing facility (S'_IF) and return,thereby eliminating the need for the
terminal tug, i.e., catcher and terminal tug functions are combined into one vehicle.
.
If the mass driver on the lunar surface is solar powered, the catcher may be down--
sized to h61d one lunar day's worth of material with transfer to the SMF taking
place during the lunar night. This may be impractical since a minimum energy
L 2 --- STcIF transfer takes ~ 2.5 lunar days (Reference 61).
n. Terminal Tug
Lunar resource utilization Concept B requires a terminal tug operating in the vicinity of
the space manufacturing facility (SMF). The general configuration of this tug is shown
in Figure 4-50. The tug retrieves the bag of lunar material launched by the mass
catcher toward the SMF, and launches propellants and empty bags back to the catcher.
Reference 60 defined the need for the tug arid presented it as Ufi[tzing a solar powerea
rotary pellet launcher propulsion system (RPL). The participants in the LRU study do
4-179
Figure 4-50.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Material Processing Eleme,t Definition Terminal Tug (TT)
Transportation
Infrastructure Handles One Catcher Load

Sizing Assumptions

43m
F i Linear
catcher
- Reducing
load in half
the
would downsize the Tu

to approximately 50
percent the propellant
capacity shown.
/ ' \ 1" I
;3
.... :" : FOUR

15m A SE
20m iO 9 SPHERE
LH 2 SPHERE - •
Inert Weight 236 T Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. 1,950T Radiator Area _N/A SDV
Gross Weight 87. l_6T Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final SMF LTV
PERFORMANCE CHARACTER: N/A

Thrust Level Efficiency
Specific Impulse 4508 N- s/kg Consumables Support
Acceleration Waste Heat Supervisory
Payload Cap. 85,000T Flow Rates N/A _ Ground
Primary
Transfer Time Useful output Total
Data Source(s) Ref 60, plus GDC Sizln_ Information and Vehicle S vnthesis Pr%cn-ams
4-180
V
not consider the RPL to be a viable system for use in the vicinity of the SMF. There-
F_=__ = fore, the tug has been conceptually defined as a large liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen
vehicle. An electric ion vehicle is, of course, an alternative possibility. As noted
in the previous catcher section, another alternative is to eliminate this vehicle by
providing the mass catcher with sufficient AV to conduct the complete transfer on its
own.
Catcher/Terminal Tug Options
LRU Concept B mass catcher was based on Dr. Heppenheimer's Lunar Mass Transport
Paper presented at Jackson Hole during Septamber 1977. The mass catcher collects
the material launched from the lunar surface by the mass driver. This incoming
stream of material will reach the catcher with an average relative velocity of 230 m/
sec. The catcher maneuvers in the vicinity of L 2 to maintain targetability along the
incoming material's trajectory. In addition, the catcher maneuvers continuously to
optimize velocity and position during a catching cycle. At the end of a catching cycle,
the catcher maneuvers to place its complete load of lunar material on a trajectory
which intersects the SMF orbit. After completing this maneuver, the catcher must
return to the proper position and velocity to start a new catching cycle. Thus the
catcher maneuvers continuously in the vicinity of L 2 during the two catching cycles
each year. This maneuvering is accomplished using an electric motor-driven rotary
pellet launcher (RPL) which ejects reaction mass manufactured of processing slag. A
terminal tug travels between the SMF orbit and the mass catcher transfer orbit,
rendezvousing with bags of lunar material and taking them to the SMF. It also
launches stores (including slag pellets for the RPL) to the mass catcher on a return
trajectory. A LO2/LH 2 terminal tug was assumed for operation in the SMF vicinity
as described in Figure 4-50.
Assessment of various mass catcher and terminal tug alternatives is summarized in
Table 4-54. Providing increased mass catcher _V capability allows its direct transfer
to the SMF and permits deletion of the tug. This eliminates problems associated with
4-181
retrieval of uncontrolled massive payloads; it also reduces or eliminates the need for
V
manned maintenance at the catcher site. The one obvious drawback is a longer time off
station for the catcher, or the requirement for several catchers.
An attractive alternative to the large self propelled catcher is a smaller self propelled
catcher. An attractive propulsion system for either self propelled catcher is 0 2 ion
electric for station keeping, momentum absorption and basic transfer, powered by a
nuclear source to preclude damage by near misses. A relatively high thrust LO2/LH 2
ACS is needed for initial material stream acquisition and rendezvous maneuvering at
the SMF. Additional evaluation of these alternative propulsion techniques should be
accomplished by subsequent studies.
Table 4--54. Catcher/Terminal Tug Options.
85 kT Mall Calcher 85 kT Mall Catcher 13 kT Mall Catcher

85 kT Payload TT No Separate Tug No Separate Tug
Two ioads/yeadSPS Two Ioads/year/SPS 13 Ioads/year/SPS
Catcher launches mall Catcher transports matl Same. Transfer may be
container loward SMF to SMF and returns to L 2 coordinated with lunar
as tug launches empty with empty container & night for use of solar.
container & expendables expendables. No powered mass driver
loward L 2. Retrieval retrieval at either calapult.
reqd at both locations. location.
One catcher & one tug Requires two calchers Two or more calchers
Vehicle Propellant (annual) Propulsion O_lions Propulsion Options
Catcher: 8,012 T slag RPL: 14,040 T slag Chem: 12,142 T LO 2
plus ? ACS plus ? ACS 1,730 T LH 2
Tug: 3,342 TLO2
Chem: 11,170 T LO 2 Ion: 1,677 T LO 2
478 T LH 2
1,600 T LH 2 130 T LH 2
Catcher Power Su_p!y
Solar -- vulnerable to Ion: 1,595 T LO 2 Ion power supply
damage from Incoming mall 125 T LH 2 Solar vs nuclear
Nuclear- shieidable
4-1_2
o. Personnel Lunar Transfer Vehicle (PLTV)
Since lunar resource utilization Concept B does not require a large transport vehicle
for transfer between low lunar orbit and the lunar surface, a personnel lunar transfer
vehicle ('PLTV) is necessary. The general configuration of the PLTV is shown in
Figure 4-$1. The configuration selected utilizes the 75 passenger module even
though the crew rotation requirements are approximately one half of this capacity.
Since no lunar material processing is contemplated for Concept B except for fiberglass
bags to contain mass driver payloads, both propellants for the PLTV round trip would
be loaded in LLO.
4.6.3 Vehicle Comparison and Other Considerations
Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicles (COTV) --
Cargo transfer through space can be efficiently performed with a low thrust vehicle
powered by solar energy. Ion electric propulsion systems using mercury or argon
propellant have been developed which can accomplish high energy transfers. Transfer
durations are substantial (months or years), due to the vehicle's low thrust to weight
ratio and periods of solar array shadowing near earth when solar power is unavailable.
Early work on space manufacturing with nonterrestrial resources recognized the
need for such a vehicle with a propellant which could be derived from nonterrestrial
materials. The mass driver reaction engine (MDRE) was proposed to fulfill this
requirement. The MDRE is an electrically driven catapult, utilizing buckets magnetical-
ly aligned in a guide track and accelerated by a linear electric motor. Propellant
(any convenient material) is placed in each bucket, accelerated to the selected exhaust
velocity, and released. Empty buckets are decelerated and returned for subsequent use.
This provides impulse to accelerate the stage plus payload, as with a conventional
chemical or electric rocket. The most attractive MDRE feature is that any waste
or excess material, such as slag from a processing facility, can theoretically be
employed as reaction mass. The MDRE limitation is its relatively low exhaust velocity,
4-183
Figure 4-51.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
V
Material Processing Element Definition Personnel Lunar Transfer Vehicle
Transportation (PLTV)
Infrastructure
Sizing Assumptions Uses standard 75 passenger personnel
transfer module

PERSONNEL
TRANSFER Since PLTV is
MODU LE sized for 75 passenger
REF. transfer, it is under-
I I
utilized for a 48
I
person lunar base. A
si_%_nificant change in
personnel reqts will
probably not effect the
PLTV size.
12.5m
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: N 200 m

Total Volume Delivery Vehicle
Inert Weight 5. IT Array Area N/A
Consumable Wt. 41.1T Radiator Area N/A SDV
Gross Weight 73.9T Assembly Location HLLV
Shuttle
Storage Cap. N/A Final _EQ LTV
PER FORMANCE CHARACTER:

Thrust Level 246 k_q Efficiency N/A
Specific Impulse 4508 N-sec/kg Consumables LO ,/LH Support
Acceleration 0.35 g IX) Waste Heat 2 _q?A2
Supervisory
Payload Cap. 27T . Flow Rates N/A _ Primary
Ground
Transfer Time _- 1 hr Useful output N/A Total
Data Source(s) GDC Sizing Information and Vehicle Synthesis Programs
4-184
which can achieve a specific impulse approximately twice that of the best chemical
rockets.
Ion electric propulsion systems accelerate charged molecular particles to very high
velocities which results in specific impulse values an order of mag'nitude higher. Ion electric
thrusters capable of using lunar derived propellants can theoretically be developed. Based
on information obtained from NASA LeRC (Reference 57 and Appendix E. 3), oxygen propel-
lant ion bombardment thrusters should be feasible, but a significant development effort
would be required. NASA LeRC has successfully performed ion beam etching tests in an
oxygen environment with no noticeable degredation of thruster components.
Fig'ure 4-52 shows a comparison of a mass driver reaction engine _IDRE) and an ion
COTV for the delivery of 5,290T from LEO to GEO with empty return. A 180 day trip
time for payload delivery has been assumed, followed by full thrust empty return with
s4rvicing accomplished in LEO. This corresponds to COTV 1 of both LRU systems
Concepts C and D. The MDRE data includes no allotment for ACS, while the ion data
includes a 12.5% allowance for LO2/LH 2 attitude control propellants. The MDRE
solar array is assumed to weigh 3.5 T/106 watts while the ion array is sized at 4.7T/
106 watts; both array areas were based on generation of 150 watts/meter 2. These
calculations have been made for an idealized LEO -- GEO transfer without shadowing.
To actually perform this transfer in 180 days, additional thrust and power would be
required, increasing the inert mass and propellant requirements for both vehicles.
For additional information, the impact of utilizing argon in the ion COTV is also
shown.
A/though both MDRE and ion COTV concepts appear technically feasible and utilize
propellants attainable from lunar resources, the ion electric propulsion device was
selected as the representative system for this study because: 1) Ion electric
z
k.J technology development (with argon) is more mature than MDRE technology develop-
ment. 2) The ion electric specific impulse is approximately 6 times greater than
4.185
Figure 4C52. COT V Assessment.
ION (O 2 SHOWN)
Payload
MDRE
... /_
5,290T up
empty return
_ _672m
7- IN2.,
MDRE & ION 02
sized to payload
& up trip time
of 180 days
_V = 5,820 mlsec
Propellant Any Convenient Reaction

Mass Oxygen Argon
Prop mass for 7,234T 629T 792T
round trip
Inert mass 1,392T 649T 649T
Up trip time 180 days 180 days 137 days
Return trip lime 32 days 20 days 15 days
Array area 176 x 103 m 2 903 x 103 m 2 903 x 103 m 2
Isp (N-s/kg) 10,000 64,425 51,812
that predicted for MDRE. This combined with a projected lower inert mass for the
ion electric COTV results in sigaaificantly lower propellant requirements. 3) A lunar
derived propellant, oxygen, should'be" acceptable for use with an ion-electric COTV.
9
This reduced somewhat the MDRE advantage of using any available waste material as
reaction mass. 4) Study personnel felt strongly that if the MDRE were used, it should
employ a material such as oxygen for reaction mass to eliminate the safety concern of
solid high velocity exhaust particles in the vicinity of habitats, manufacturing facilities,
and SPS's. Thus similar lunar propellant processing requirements are imposed for
MDRE or ion electric COTV, since both use oxygen propellant.
Lunar Material Launch Technique --
The three LRU concepts are most easily distinguished by the method employed for
lifing material from the lunar surface to low lunar orbit. These three launch tech-
niques are identified and compared in Figure 4-53.
4-186
Figure 4-53. Lunar Material Launch Technique.
MASS DRIVER LTV LDR

.,CARGO
,CARGO
./
LH2
1 7_
, I 1.
.Oi
1 1 I
I
'\
.;
Cargo Raw material Dense producls Dense products

Launch rale (5) 2.5 kg bags of (1) 310 T payload (1) 300 T payload
material per sec every 24 hr every 24 hr
Propellant Electrical power LO 2 &LH2 LO2/A i

Prop quanlily 37.5 MW 242.3 T 646.5 T
Vehicle mass 450 T 30 T 71.5 T
Fleet size 1 7 7
Pollutant Negligible 2.8 kg/sec 3.8 kg/sec
release (Volililes only)
The mass driver, used in LRU Concept B, is an electrically driven catapult which
launches small bags of lunar material at a rate of five bags per second. The catapult
has si_o'nificant power requirements, but since material processing is not accomplished
on the moon, as it must be with Concepts C and D, the total lunar power requirements
are lowest for Concept B. The mass driver catapult is more massive than LTV's
and equivalent to the seven LDR's required. Since no propellants are expended, the
mass driver does not release any appreciable volatiles into the lunar environment.
The lunar transfer vehicle (LTV) is employed for both cargo and personnel transfer
between moon and LLO in LRU Concept C. The vehicle is a single stage fully reusable
chemical rocket using LO2/LH 2 propellants. In operation, round trip hydrogen will
be loaded at the low lunar orbit (LLO) propellant depot while round trip oxygen would
be loaded on the lunar surface.

F
F:
%.I
Lunar resource utilization Concept D employs a lunar derived rocket (LDR) for
4-187
transfer of cargo andpersonnel from the lunar surface to low lunar orbit. The LDR
is a single stage vehicle utilizing lunar derived aluminum and oxygen as propellants.
Although LDR propellant consumptionis 2.7 times greater than for the LTV, released
volatiles are only slightly higher than for Concept C since a large percentage of LDR
combustion products are solid aluminum oxides.
PLTV As Start Up Lander --
Lunar resource utilization Concept B does not include a heavy cargo transfer vehicle
for operation between the lunar surface and low lunar orbit which would be available
for start up equipment deliveries. However, it appears that the PLTV can serve this
purpose if operated in a zero payload up mode. Utilized in this manner, the PLTV can
deliver a 68 ton payload to the lunar surface. Cargo would be carried on side mounted.
pods. In order to provide adequate throttle control, the total engine thrust should be
uprated to 285 kN.
V
4.6.4 Vehicle Requirements Summary
Vehicle sizing for LRU systems Concepts B, C and D was accomplished by consider-
ing interrelated parameters of vehicle payload capacity, launch frequency, and total
fleet requirements. The given information is total annual payload for each transfer
leg to support construction of one 10 GW SPS. This information is contained in the
steady state material requirements logistics scenarios. The annual payload is
calculated by multiplying the quantities/10 units of SPS shown in the logistic scenarios
by one tenth the SPS mass, which is equal to 9,838 T for an SPS constructed using
8 9.6 percent lunar materials.
Table 4-55 identifies the vehicles required to perform steady state operations for each
concept. Vehicle requirements for start-up and replacement at end of life have not been
included here.
All COTV confignrations employ ion electric propulsion systems with oxygen pro-
4--188
pellant. A modular arrangement will most likely be adoptedto permit construction of
the desired COTV configuration with standard array segments, thruster clusters,
oxygentankage, and structural framework. The numbers in parenthesis preceding
the thruster quantity refer to the transfer leg (leg (1) for ConceptB was deleted due to
an insignificant payload requirement). The parenthetical nun'bers following are the
payload mass transfer capability.
LRU Concept B exhibits the lowest total vehicle quantity but the largest number of
vehicle types. The mass catcher and terminal tug havebeen combined into a single
vehicle, the self propelled mass catcher. In addition, the POTV and PLTV vehicles
probably have many common elements and should not be counted as two separate
vehicles. This commonality should reduce LRU ConceptB vehicle types to skx, only
one more than required for Concepts C andD.
Table 4-55. Vehicle Requirements Comparison.
B C D
Type & size Qty Type & size Qly Type & size Qty
Earth SDV 2 SDV 3 SDV 2
launch Space shuttle 2 Space shuttle 2 Space shuttle 2
Ion electric (02) Ion electric (02) Ion electric (02)

(2) 240 thrusters 2 (1) 1,120 thrusters 2 (1) 1,120thrusters 2
(118 T) (5,293 T) (5,293 T)
CO'I-V (3) 2,740 thrusters 2 (2) 5,512 thruslers 5 (2) 5,500thrusters 3
(6,578 T) (2,540 T) (2,328_T)
(4) 5,880 thrusters 3 (3) 5,400thrusters 3 (3) 5,400thrusters 3
(32,865 1") (29,678 T) (29,678 T)
POTV
Chemical (LO 2 3 Chemical (LO2 2 Chemical (LO 2 2
& LH 2) & LH2) & LH 2)
Lunar Mass driver cat. 1 LTV (LO2 & LH2) 7 LDR (LO 2 & AI) 7
launch PLTV(LO2 & LH2) 1
Other Mass catcher/13" 2
Total vehicle quantity 18 !24 21

Distinct vehicle types 7 5
4-189
4.7 LRU MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
SPSconstruction material Wascharacterized in terms of its composition, packaging,
and the quantity transferred between the mining location on the moon and the manu-
facturing location in-space. Materials are required from both the earth and moon.
Lunar material requirements were developedbased on the updatedquantity of 105,650 T
neededfor completed SPSparts plus the lunar derived propellants neededto deliver
lunar and earth supplies. Propellant requirements were obtained from the steady
state material logistics scenarios. The following assumptions were used in obtaining
these material requirements.
1) The maximum recovery of any single element from lunar soil is 50 percent.
2) Highlands soil element percentageswere used due to the quantity of aluminum
(relative to iron) required.
3) Beneficiated iron recovery via znagnetic separation of 0.15 percent was used.
Remaining iron requirements were provided by electrolysis of molten lunar
soil and subsequentrefining.
4) A 5 percent material loss due to initial beneficiation was used for ConceptB.
This removal of the large lithic fragments occurred prior to material transport
to the SMF via mass driver catapult.
Lunar materials neededfor each LRU systems concept are listed in Table 4-56.
The total lunar material mined quantity shown does not agree with the quantity derived
in the steady state material logistics scenarios. This is due to the application of
different assumptions during their" derivation. Recovery values used for EMR/LMR
assessment in steady state logistics scenarios were 75 percent for oxygen and 100
percent for aluminum. As indicated in assumption 1), data in Table 4-56 was prepared
assuming a 50 percent maximum recovery of any single element. Although material
quantities' differ dhe to these recovery percentages, the comparative assessment of
the three LRU system concepts is not appreciably influenced by this recovery per-
centage variation.
4-190
i¸ _ ::: Table 4-56. Lunar material requirements per 10 GW SPS.
,J
Sys Concepl B Sys Concept C Sys Concept D

, r
Total Lunar Mass (T) Mass (1)

Element Element Mass (D
Material Mined Element
Percent Percent Percent
384,700 Recovered 507,B00 Recovered Recovered
1,145,900
Native Glass 34,690 47 34

34,690 34,690 15
Beneficiated Fe 55O 760
27 1,720
19
Processed Fe 3,910 3,700 2,740
Processed 02 39,250 27 105,510 5O 174,500 35
Processed Si 34,830 50 34,830 35 34,830 15
Processed AI 12,280 28 20
.12,280 73,900 50
Total useful
125,510 33 191,770 38 322,380 28
material required
L RU Concept C and D steady state requirements are very insensitive to lunar operations,
since processing occurs on the lunar surface and processing chemicals are the only
deliverable item effected. The same is true for Concept B, even though processing
occurs at the SMF, since material transfer from moon to SMF is accomplished with
the mass driver catapult. The mass driver uses no chemical propellant, and the
catcher/tug requires very little, making this transfer relatively insensitive to the
material quantity transported.
It is interesting to note that each concept has a unique element recovery requirement
which determines the material mined quantity. Silicon for SPS solar cells in Concept
B, oxygen for LTV and COTV propellant in Concept C, and aluminum for LDR fuel in
Concept D dictate total material requirements. Sufficient quantities of other elements
are available in the mined material so that element recovery requirements rarely
exceed 35 percent (only native glass in Concept B).
Earth material requirements include various SPS components such as electronics
kJ assembles and special metal parts, alloying materials, plus cooling fluids and process-
ing chemicals. Total annual earth supplied material was estimated at 12,490 T, of
4-191
which only 4 percent represented unrecoverable cooling andprocessing supplies.
Specific emphasis was placed on defining requirements for water, since most earth
manufacturing operations utilize large quantities of H20 for cooling, washing, and
other purposes. Due to the processing techniques postulated for in-space manufactur-
ing, very little water is required. Estimated annual H20 resupply due to processing
and cooling system losses was approximately 300 T. An initial SMF water supply of
1000 T was estimated. Additional water for personnel drinking andwashing was
included in the 0.8 T/year of consumables allocated for each spaceworker.
Material characterization for Concept B involves lunar surface activities which are
limited to material mining, beneficiation, packaging, and launch. Additional beneficia-
tion and all SMF product and propellant related processing and manufacturing operations
occur at the space manufacturing facility. This results in an accumulation of waste
material (slag) at the ST[F, which is useful as radiation shielding• This transfer of
large quantities of excess material from lunar surface to SMF can only be justified if
a catapult and retrieval system like the mass driver/mass catcher is employed.
Conventional rocket transfer methods would result in unacceptable propellant con-
sumption requirements.
As depicted in Figure 4-54, lunar surface operations consist of mining, and bene-
ficiation to remove the large lithic fragments and seprate out native lunar glass. This
native glass is used to produce the woven glass bags which serve as packaging for
mass driver "payloads." Some limited chemical refining may be required for the glass
bag manufacturing operation, and if an aluminum coating for electrostatic guidance
is desired on the bags, some processing will also be necessary. Lunar soil is packed
into these bags and catapulted from the moon. These mass driver payloads are
retrieved by the mass catcher, an action which results in rupture of the woven glass
containment bags. A catcher ion-electric propulsion system, using oxygen propellant
supplied by the SMF, transfers accumulated material to the SMF.

V
4-192
SMF 378,880 Tlyr Propellant
19,880 T/yr mfg
LO2
_ Earth Mat'ls
• _"_ - _ 12,490 T/yr
" Beneficate
'_ 34,690 m/yr
/'1 \\ Native Glass
.__i_ y" l_-YLow density Process& \\ 550 T/yr Fe
stock mfg \\331,150 Tlyr H.R.
I SPS Construction
..... Major
" Component
Parts mfg 105,650 Tlyr _._
facility subassembly Assembly
_.--'_" _ _ Material Stream
L_tJ,3_u //yr
34,690 T/yr Native Glass
384,700 Tlyr 331,700 T/yr H.R. __-_
highlands _.f----__ _,r _ __' ,_ _"--l_-'_
regolith " - --_..__Materlal
_'_,-
__ _'_,_'___:' _ Beneficlate packaging catapult
__'='--;_Mine Lunar Surface Operations
Figure 4-54. Material characterization for LRU Concept B.
At the SMF, beneficiation operations are repeated to recover the native glass bag
material and separate out free iron. All subsequent processing, propellant manu-
facturing, stock production, parts manufacturing, and SPS fabrication occur at the
SMF. The recovered native glass is reused to produce foamed glass structural
members for SPS.
Of the original 384,700 T mined on the moon, 18,310 T remains on the lunar surface
and 366,390 T is delivered to the SMF. From this is produced 125,530 T of useful
products and 240,860 T remains as slag. Unrecoverable losses during subsequent
manufacturing and assembly operations result in an additional accumulation of
5,920 T, some of which is from earth delivered materials. Thus total SMF slag
production is 246,780 T per SPS. Shielding requirements for the SMF habitat have
4-193
been estimated at 85,500 T, approximately a 4 month slag supply at the assumed
production rate of one SPS/yr.
l%_aterialcharacterization for Concept C involves processing on the lunar surface to

remove most of the unwantedmaterial (slag), prior to spacedelivery with chemical
rockets. This circumvents the inefficient process of utilizing large quantities of
rocket propellant to lift unneededmaterial into space. Lunar surface processing
involves beneficiation to recover free glass andiron. Separation of aluminum or iron
rich soils is not required for Concept C since the driving element recovery requirement
is oxygen (for propellant), which is equally prevalent in all soils. For Concept D,
additional beneficiat_on to obtain aluminum rich soils would be desirable, since
aluminum propellant needs are the key driver.
As shown in Figure 4-55, lunar surface processing includes production of metalurgical
grade iron and aluminum (some earth alloying materials may be added), some metalurgi-
V
cal grade silicon (for high quality silica glass), highly purified silicon (for solar cells),
and liquid oxygen. Native lunar glass for subsequent manufacture of foamed glass is
obtained directly from beneficiation of the lunar soil. Of the original 507,800 T
high/ands regolith,. 191,790 T useful material is retained and 316,010 T remains on the
lunar surface as slag.
Lunar surface stock manufacturing output consists of high density metal products in-
cluding rolls of lm wide aluminum sheet and 7 cm and 16 cm wide steel sheet, coils of
aluminum wire, and aluminum and sendust castings. Nonmetallic products include
spools of glass fiber and marbles of high purity SiO 2. These products, plus bags of
native glass, ingots of refined silicon, and containers of liquid oxygen comprise the
LTV payload. All payload items are loaded into LTV payload canisters of 155 T capacity
and launched in pairs. Most of the LO 2 is used as LTV propellant, only 24,000 T is pay-
load for delivery to LLO. In LLO, the containerized payloads are transferred from
LTV to COTV for the trip to GEO. LO 2 payload is distributed to GEO and LEO depots
4-194
.__/Y///_.f _Z_l 12,490 Tlyr
_?//_//:Y/_//_/_-y._[II_I SMF 118,140 Tlyr . earth marls
_=_
____,_.__, n _-.'.. 105,650 TIyr
--- 112,220 TI r _ ' - ....... density stock
i__'_ . .--i//jl _ ;, _Z , Low density _1_t7 34,690 native

Parts m fg COTV" , glass particles
SPS Construction Major Component I" 36,320 SiO 2
facility
subassembly Assembly LLO y._marbles
depot & ,_,_r'_
34,690 Tlyr Ioglstlcs_

native glass
i 57,100 T/yr 16,680 Tlyr
760 Tlyr Fe 02, Si metal sheet u
507,800 T/yr 472 , 350 T/y r H . R. Fe & AI wire & castings _ 86,1 40 T/yr'LO2
highlands " _-_ ..... _N_t _------- ..... _[_.1_ _='_-- -
:%'
":% "" J#._.¥_,.'_, .... . "_'_" Beneficlale Process Stock mfg Transfer Propellant
_-,,,_" __ vehicles mfg

Mine-"_'_----:- - ' LUNAR SURFACE OPERATIONS
Figure 4-55. Material characterization for LRU Concept C.
by COTV, and some remains at the LLO depot. At the SMF in GEO, dense materials
and products are manufactured into low density parts, components, and subassemblies;
and fabricated into the SPS. Many of these parts should be manufactured only at the
SMF due to their very low density (foamed glass structure) or fragility(siliconsolar
cell panels). Delivery of these manufactured parts from the lunar surface would
result in extremely difficultpackaging and handling problems.
LRU Concept D is similar to Concept C except a larger quantity of regolith is mined,
beneficiated, and processed on the lunar surface to supply the oxygen and aluminum •
LDR propellants required to launch the 105,650 T of SPS construction materials into
low lunar orbit.
4-195
4.8 LRU START-UP LOGISTICS
Start-up for any LRU concept involves delivering all space facilities, vehicles, initial
supplies, initial propellants, and personnel to their proper locations, and placing
them on operational status to support steady state production. Start-up phase accom-
plishment for an in-space manufacturing scenario may have a significant effect on
total program cost due to its early funding requirements. It may also influence the
design and production requirements for launch or orbital transfer vehicles, since
start-up material transfer rates may exceed those for steady state operations.
The equipment which must be delivered from earth into space and placed on operational
status is identified in Tables 4-57 and 4-58 for LRU Concept B and LRU Concepts
C & D respectively. Vehicles and propellants for delivery of these facilities must
also be delivered from earth. We have conservatively assumed that all propellants
required during start-up operations are delivered from earth. In addition, all initial
depot propellant supplies to support steady state operations are also obtained from v
earth, except for SMF depot oxygen in Concept B, and the LLO depot oxygen in Concepts
C & D. Some of these start-up and initial propellant supplies could conceivably be de-
rived from lunar resources during the latter part of the start-up period, _ignificantl.y
reducing earth payload requirements.
One significant change has occurred in the assumptions used for start-up, and those
previously used to develop steady state material requirements. Facility requirements
estimates for Concepts C & D indicated that even though material processing and stock
manufacturing were performed on the lunar surface, a large S_IF facility was still
required to produce solar cells, subassemblies, and fabricate the SPS. This improved
understanding of facility requirements led to a reallocation in personnel assignments.
It was previously assumed that 1,565 people were required to produce solar power
satellites; 1,365 at the lunar base and 200 at the SMF. Due to better understanding of
4-196
production and facility requirements, personnel support facilities have been revised
to 400 at the lunar base and 1,165 at the SMF. This is the same total previously
assumed, and the higher SMF crew percentage will slightly reduce the steady state
propellant requirements needed to transport and sustain these personnel. The
temporary shelters in LLO and LEO support transient personnel or maintenance crews
during steady state operations and have no (or very few) assigned inhabitants. During
start-up, however, the LEO station will provide a base for assembling ion electric
COTV's and performing other logistics functions.
Crew requirements for Concept B have remained unchanged from those used for the
earlier development of steady state material requirements. All processing and manu-
facturing is still accomplished at the SMF, so 94 percent of all personnel are
stationed there, with the remaining people split between the lunar mining base (48 people)
and the GEO maintenance station (36 people}.
4. 8.1 Start-Up Mass Estimates
Facility sizing information for mining, beneficiation, processing, manufacturing, pro-
pellant production, propellant storage depots, power stations, habitats, and trans-
portation vehicles was derived from steady state material logistics scenarios, and
is described in Subsections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6 of this volume. In addition
to these defined facilities, other items were also accounted for in our start-up
mass estimates such as pressure shells for housing production equipment, and
radiators for waste heat rejection. The sizing assumptions used for this equipment
plus ohher guidelines for obtaining LRU start-up estimates are included in the following
paragraphs.
Power Plants -- Nuclear fission reactors with Bray_on cycle generators have been
assumed for lunar surface application with all three LRU concepts. Selection of
nuclear power rather than solar eliminated the energy storage problem associated
with the 336 hour lunar night. Of the three LRU concepts, B is least sensitive to this
4-197
Table 4-57. Concept B Start-up Phase.
Propellant Personnel
Location T
Material Facilities Facilities Facilities
Lunar Surface Mining & Initial Benef. LO2/LH 2 48 Person

Glass Bag Mfg. Depot Lunar Base
Material Handling & (Personnel
Mass Driver Catapult Transfer)
LLO
LO2/LH 2 12 Person
Depot Temp Shelter
SMF Beneficiation Oxygen 1365 Person

Process & Refine. Liqufaction Habitat
Dense Stock Mfg.
Parts Mfg
Component Mfg LO2/LH 2
Foamed Glass Depot
Solar Cell Mfg
SPS Assembly
_iass Catcher Base)
GEO
LO2/LH 2 36 Person
Depot Habitat
LEO (COTV Assy Fixture) LO2/LH 2 75 Person

Depot Temp Shelter
power source selection since its requirements are lowest, and mining and mass
driver utilization are amenable to daylight operational restrictions. All in-space
power plants are assumed to be solar photovoltaic for all three LRU concepts.
Radiators -- Although heat rejection capability has been included in material process-
ing facility and habitat mass estimates, it has not been specifically included for other
facilities. To account for the heat rejection requirement, radiator masses of 20 T/M-_ 7
and 30 T/MW have been used for in--space and lunar surface applications respectively.
It was assumed that 50 percent of the total power requirement at each location is waste
heat which must be radiated away.
• 4-198
%J
Table 4-58. Concepts C&D Start-up Phase.
Propellant Personne 1
Location Material Facilities Facilities Facilities
Lunar Surface Mining & Benef. Oxygen 400 Person

Process & Refine. Llqufaction Lunar Base
Dense Stock Mfg LO 2 Depot

(Metal Sht, Wire, Castings
& Glass Filament) Alum Depot
(I) only)
LLO 12 Person
-- LO2/LH 2
Depot Temp Shelter
GEO Component Mfg 1165 Person

LO2/LH 2
Foamed Glass Depot Habitat
Solar Cell Mfg
SPS Assembly
LEO (COTV Assy Fixture) LO /LH 75 Person

r
2 9
Depot " Temp Shelter
Pressure Shells -- Many lunar surface and in-space processing/manufacturing/assembly
operations should be located within pressurizable containers to accommodate personnel
for control, supervisory, or maintenance functions. Shuttle and SDV external hydro-
gen tanks have been selected for this application. ET LH 2 tank quantity requirements have
been estimated by assuming an average manufacturing equipment density of 0. S T/m 3
3
and 25 percent utilization of an ET tank's volume, which is 1520 m .
ET's Req'd = Equipment Mass = .Equipment Mass

(0. S) (0.2S) (lS20) 190
Some discretion was used in selecting those facility items which would be likely candidates
for location within a pressure shell. Generally, only a small percentage of processing
and refining equipment would require encapsulation, while most fabrication equipment
4-199
would benefit from easy personnel accessibility. Mass was estimated at 29.16 T/ET,
which includes 14.4 T for the hydrogen tank anti the remainder for ECLSS modules,
basic internal furnishings, and utility services.
Start-up Personnel -- Initial start-up operations are confined to LEO where COTV's
are assembled and their early payloads accumulated and integrated. Build-up at most
other locations will be appro_rm rely linear, starting with the minimum crew size
need4d to assemble equipment, and completing the start-up period with a full complement
of personnel to support steady state operations. Thus, for most activity locations an
average (50 percent) crew is assumed for the start-up manned activity duration. In
certain instances (concept B's lunar base) the entire steady state crew may be needed
to construct and checkout facilities. A mass of 0.393 T/person times the number of trips
is used, which accounts for personnel food, clothing, and the transfer module mass.
Start-up Lunar Propellant Supplies -- Sufficient propellants are stored on the lunar V
surface during start-up to permit transfer of all personnel from the moon to low lunar
orbit. For Concept B, an extra PLTV is included to provide a back-up personnel transfer
vehicle. Steady state operations require 7 LTV's for Concepts C and D which should
provide sufficient contingency capability for start-up operations.
Concept D Lunar Fuel Depot -- LDR aluminum propellant is stored on the lunar surface
in LDR f_el canisters capable of holding ~ 100T of powdered aluminum each. Each
canister has a mass of 0.73 T and 60 are required to provide storage for one full
month of steady state operations. This is equivalent to 43.7 T cf aluminum storage
tankage which is combined with 274.6 T of IX) 2 storage modules to yield a total lunar
surface depot mass of 318 T.
$PS Assembly Fixtures -- The mass for this facility was obtained by combining the LEO
and GEO SPS assembly fixture masses from the NASA-JSC Earth Baseline Brochure V
4--200
(1-25-78) and deleting the habitat masses which have been accounted for separately.
Detailed start-up mass estimates for LRU Concepts B, C, and D are included in Tables
4-59, 4-60 and 4-61 respectively. Condensed tabulations of these start-up mass
estimates are presented in Tables 4-62, 4-63 and 4-64 and pictorially represented in
Figures 4-56, 4.57 and 4-58 for LRU Concepts B, C, and D respectively. As indicated
by these tables and figures, the total earth payload required for start-up varies from
128.0 kT for Concept B to 260.1 kT for Concept D. Material facilities are the most
massive payload requirement for Concept B, followed by initial propellant supplies and
depots and vehicles. Propellant requirements for Concepts C and D constitute the
major payload category, followed by material facilities arid depots and vehicles.
Start-up personnel requirements for Concept B are lo_er'than those for C and D since
! six month duty tours are feasible at the SMF due to readily available radiation shield-
I
i
ing.
A summary comparison of start-up mass requirements for the three LRU system con-
cepts and the reference earth baseline is contained in Table 4-65. All LRU concepts
have start-up mass requirements 5 to 10 times that of the reference earth baseline.
Comparison of the three LRU options shows lower mass requirements for Concept B
in all categories except habitats. This is due to an assumption that the Concept B ,_¢IF
habitat will provide radiation protection and pseudo-gravity to support six month activity
tours. Personnel estimates were based on nominal duty tours with a linear crew in-
crease to steady state populations at the end of start-up. It was assumed that the lunar
base would be established the first year (3 year build-up), followed by the SMF a year
later (2 year build-up).
In addition to the earth supplied start-up facilities, 6,000 T of raw lunar material is
required at the GEO habitat in LRU Concepts C and D to shield two 600 person solar
flare shelters. Transfer vehicle propellants for 20 LTV flights and one COTV 3 flight have
been included to provide this shielding. Lesser requirements are similarly accounted
for in Concept B.
4-201
%2
Table 4-59.
Concept B Start-up Estimate.
LUNAR SURFACE (T) (MV

Mining Equipment 125 0.015
Beneficiation Equip 9 0.005
Glass Bag lVffg Facility 160 0.8
ET Tanks & Modules (2 ET) 58 0.02
Mass Driver Catapult 314 39.3
Mat'l Handling Facility 75 0.5
Temporary Shelter (12 people) 30
Habitat 48 People (6 too) 185 0.5
Personnel (48 People Avg 2 1/2 yrs) 95
Power Station (50 1VI%V) 254 41.14

(Nuclear Assumed)
Propellant Depot (POTV + Reliq) 15
Initial Prop. Supply {Personnel Xfer) 6O
1380
Propellant to Land Equipment

LLO ---,.- Moon (0. 691) 954
(th Down + Stg Return) (PLTV)
LOW LUNAR ORBIT
PLTV's (2) 10.2

Temporary Shelter (12 People) 52
Propellant Depot 31.2
Initial Prop. Supply {6 Mo) 64.5
PLTV LLO -_Moon (S Flts Full) 224 _1.52)
POTV LLO -,-LEO (5 Flts 75% Full) 207 (×1.87)
589 Cargo Personnel
TOTAL TO LLO 2923 2828 (5 Flts Full)
Propellant to Deliver 1407 1131 276
LEO-_LLO (1.87) Personnel
Cargo (0.4 Round Trip) 4330
4--202
Table 4-59. Concept B Start-up Estimate (continued).
SMF (2:1 RESONANCE ORBIT) (T) (MW)

Beneflciation Equipment 18 0.01
Processing Facility 1775 331.0
Stock Manufacturing 173 20.5
Parts Manufacturing 1308 3.9
Component Assy Facilities 185 0.41
Silicon Refining 5900 19.36
Silicon Cell Production 16150 239.04
SPS Assembly Fixtures 8568 Incl
Process Chem & Supplies (1 yr) 1655
Mfg Facility Radiators 6500 4, 29
Liquefaction Plant 76 Incl

Propellant Depot 350 Incl
Initial Prop Supply (LH2) 480
Catcher Prop L^--_SMF 1720
POTV Prop SM_;-_LEO Xfer (2.1) 2312
COTV prop SMF-,,-GEO(Shielding) 39
Habitat 1365 People (86 ET) 7853 13.5
Personnel (700 People Avg 2 Yrs) 1101
Power Station (650 MW) 5030 633.4

(Solar photovoltaic)
Vehicles
Mass Catchers (2) 6000
COTV 4 (3) Bring Themselves

71160
Propellant to Deliver
LEO to SMF Cargo (0.35 RT) 24521 (70059 T)
Personnel (2.1) 2312 (1101T )
97993
GEO MAINTENANCE FACILITY

Propellant Depot 31.2 Incl
Initial Propellant 93.5
POTV GEO _-LEO (2.2) 62.3
Habitat 36 People (3 mo) 242.1 Incl

Personnel (18 People Avg 1 Yr) 28.3
Flare Shelter (650 T from SMF) 3.4
461
Propellants to Deliver
LEO to GEO Cargo (0. 245) 106 (432.5 T)
Personnel (2.2) 63 ( 28.3 T)
630
4-203 '
Table 4-59. ConceptB Start-up Estimate (continued).
LOW EARTH ORBIT (T)

COTV Assy Fixture 2OO
Habitat (75 People) 604
Propellant Depot 259

Initial Prop Supply (6 Mo) 3846
Space Vehicles
408
COTV 2 (LEO _-GEO) Qty 2
COTV_ (LEO-*-LLO) Qty 2 4658
COTV= (LLO-*-GEO) Qty 3 14994
I:_DTV'}(AII)
Qty 11 Enough to 74
Return Median Crew
25043
Total Payload to LEO

I 127,996 I
Ctrgo Facilities 85075 615SDV Launches
Cargo Propellants 38471
Personnel 1224 42 Shuttle Launches
External Tanks (224) 3226 (No Charge)

V
Total
LO 2 LH 2
COTV Propellants 25797 25387 410
POTV & PLTV Propellants 6410 5609 801
Depot Propellants 4544 3349 1195
B
Catcher Propellants 1720 1595 125

38471 35940 2531
4-204
Table 4-60. Concept C Start-up Estimate.
LUNAR SURFACE (T) (MV

Beneficiation Equip 27 0.01
Processing Facility 2905 436
Liquefaction Plant 486 10.8
Process Chem & Supplies (1/2 Yr) 1660
Mfg Facility Radiators 7500 4.95
Habitat 400 People (12 ET's) 2000 3.6

Power Station (500 MW) 1275 495, 5

__-----
(Nuclear Assumed)

Initial Prop Supply (Personnel Xfer) 320
23827
Propellant to Land Equipment

LLO-,.-Moon (0.6715) 16000
Propellant to Launch Shielding
6000 T Moon-,-LLO 4029
43856
LOW LUNAR ORBIT

LTV's (7) 210

Temporary Shelter (12 Person) 52
Propellant Depot 796. 1

InitialProp Supply (3 Mo LH2) 2396. 3
POTV LLO-_LEO (Crew) (I.87) 883
1470
COTV 3 LLO"_GEO (Shielding)
5808
4-205
Table 4-60. Concept C Start-up Estimate (continued).
(T) Cargo Personnel
TOTAL TO LLO 49664 49192 472
Propellant to Deliver 22060

LEO to LLO (0.4305) 21177
(1.87) 883
71724
GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT (T) (MW)

Component As sy Facilities 185 0.4
Silicon Cell Production 16150 239.04
Habitat 1165 People (66 ET) 4460 10.5

Shielding From Moon Ref (6000)
Power Station (260 M_V) 2015 256.5
Propellant Depot 39 V
I:_TV Prop GEO-,--LEO Xfer (2.2) 4152
46338
LEO to GEO Cargo (0. 245) 10891 (44451)
Personnel (2.2) 4151 (1887)
61380
LOW EARTH ORBIT

COTV Assy Fixture 200

Space Vehicles
1904
COTV 1 (LEO-*-GEO) Qty 2
COTV_ (LEO-a-LLO) Qty 5 23425
COTV: (LLO-_-GEO) Qty 3 13770
POTV (All)Qty II Enough to Return 74
Median Crew
51123
4-206
Table 4-60. Concept C Start-up Estimate (continued)°
Total Payload to LEO (T) 184,227 {
Cargo Facilities 892 SDV

<
L Cargo Propellants 102457
76560 } Launches
Personnel 2359 80 Shuttle

Launches
Total
LO 2 L__.H
2
POTV & LTV Prop 30098 26336 3762
Depot Propellants 5323 7601
76560 64664 11896
4-207
Table 4-61. Concept D Start-up Estimate. %J
LUNAR SURFACE (T) (MW)

Beneflciation Equip 6O 0. 034
Processing Facility 5480 885.0
Liquefaction Plant 836 18.6
Habitat 400 People (12 ET's) 2000 3.6

Power Station ( 960 iVI_r) 245O 957.0

(Nuclear Assumed)
Initial Prop Supply (Personnel Xfer) 87O
35288
Propellant to Land Equip

LLO--*-Moon (1. 835) 64754
Propellant to Launch Shielding
6000 T Moon-b-LLO 11010
111O52
LOW LUNAR ORBIT

LDR's (7) 500.5

Temporary Shelter (12 Person) 52
Propellant Depot 187.5

133
Initial Prop Supply (4 Mo LH2)
POTV LLO-_LEO (Crew) (1.87) 883
1470
COTV 3 LLO-_GEO (Shielding)
3226
4-208
Table 4-61. ConceptD Start-up Estimate (continued).
(T) Cargo Personnel
TOTAL TO LLO 114278 113806 472
Propellant to Deliver 49877

LEO to LLO (0.4305) 48994
(I.87) 883
m
m
164155
GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT (T) (MW)

Component As sy Facilities 185 0.4
Silicon Cell Production 1615O 239.04
Habitat 1165 People (66 ET) 446O 10.5

Shielding From Moon Ref (6000)
Power Station ( 260 M_V) 2015 (256.5)

Propellant Depot 39
I_TV Prop GEO-_-LEO Xfer (2.2) 4152
46338
LEO to GEO Cargo (0. 245) 10891 (44451)
Personnel (2.2) 4151 (1887)
61386
4-209
Table 4-61. ConceptD Start-up Estimate (continued).
LOW EARTH ORBIT (T)

COTV Assy Fixture 200

Space Vehicles
COTV 1 (LEO--,..C;EO)
Qty 2 1904
COTV^ (LEO-=-LLO) Qty"3 14025
COTV; (LLO-_GEO) Qty 3 13770
I_DTV-(AII) Qty" 11 Enough to 74
Return Median Crew
34525
Total Payload to LEO 260,060
Cargo Facilities 102313 1269 SDV

Cargo Propellants 152450 Launches
Personnel 2359 80 Shuttle

Launches = =
Total A1
LO 2 L___H
2 u

POTV Propellants 10069 8810 1259
Depot Propellants 5262 4308 684 270
LDR Propellants 75764 52235 23529
152450 125732 2919 23799
4-210
@ Table 4-62. Start-up Mass Estimate for Concept B.
Mass in metric tons)

[
Mat'l Depots &

Facilities Habitat Vehicles Propellant Personnel Total
Lunar 995 215 + 15 60 48 People 1,380

Surface Avg For 2.5 Yr
6 Month Tours
XFER LLO.-._ Lunar Surface 954 954
LLO t 52 41 496 (12 Temporary) 589
XFER LEO _ LLO 1,407 1,407
SMF 51,305 7,853 6,350 4,551 700 People 71,160
Avg For 2 Yr
6 Month Tours
XFER LEO-----_ 3MF 26,833" 26,833
l
GEO 246 31 156 18 People 461

Avg For 1 Yr
3 Month Tours B
X FER LEO _ GEO 169 169

LEO 200 604 20,393 3,846 (75 Temporary) 25,043
rl
Total 52,500 8,970 26,830 38,472 1,224 127,996

,, ,,,,,,, , ,, ......
÷ Includes temporary 12 _erson shelter for mass driver maintenance

*includes propellant to delivery 650T shielding from SMF to GEO
Table 4-63. Start-up Mass Estimate for Concept C.

(Mass in metric tons)
Mat'l Depots &

Lunar 20,881 2,000 154 320 200 People 23,827

Surface Avg For 3 Yr
6 Month Tours
XFER LLO--=- Lunar Surface 20,029* 20,029

LLO I 52 1,006 4,750* (1 2 Temporary) 5,808
XFER LEO--'_ LLO 22,060 22,060
GEO 35,281 4,460 39 4,671 600 People 46,338
Avg For 2 Yr
!
i 3 Month Tours
I
XFER LEO "--=" GEO 15,042 15,042

LEO 200 604 40,630 9,689 (75 Temporary) 51,123
Total 56,362 7,116 41,829 76,561 2,359 184,227
*Includes Propellant to Deliver 6,000 T Shielding From Lunar Surface to GEO
4-211
Table 4-64. Start-up Mass Estimate for Concept D.
Mass in metric tons)
Mat'l Depots &

Lunar 31,628 2,000 318 870 200 People 35,288

Surface Avg For 3 Yr
6 Month Tours
XFER LLO --,'- Lunar Surface 75,764* 75,764
LLO I 52 688 2,486* (12 Temporary) 3,226
XFER LEO--_ LLO 49,877 49,877
GEO 35,281 4,460 39 4,671 600 People 46,338
Avg For 2 Yr
3 Month Tours
XFER LEO --_- GEO 15,042 15,042
LEO 200 604 29,981 3,740 (75 Temporary) 34,525
Total 67,109 7,116 31,026 1 52,450 2,359 260,060
*Includes propellant to deliver 6,000T shielding from Lunar Surface to GEO
Note: "Facility" includes matl

processing, habitats, depots,
vehicles & personnel
__Facility -= 1,400 T
Facility = 66,600 T
OOOT
Prop =. 4,600 T
71,200 T
Facility -- 1O0 T
Prop = 500 T Propellant = 26,800 T
600 T
Propellant = 1,400 T Facility

Prop =
= 300
150T T
450 T
Facility = 21,200 Propellant = 150 T

Prop. -, 3,800 T
25,000 T
Total payload = 128,000 T
EARTH
Fi_ure 4-56. LRU Concept B Start-up Payload Requirements.
4-212
E--
Note: "Facility" includes marl

Facility == 23,800 T vehicles & personnel
_)> b/_ Opellant" 20.O00T
Facility = 1,050 T _ Facility = 41,700 T

=4,750 T _ Prop = 4,700 T
5,800 T / 46,400 T
Propellant == 22,1 O0 T_ / Propellant == 15,000 T

\
Facility = 41,400 T
Prop. = 9'700T LEL_ J OT "
Figure 4-57. LRU Concept C Start-up Payload Requlrements.
35,300 T
_Facility Note: vehicles
"Facility" &includes
personnelmatl
_> _._ y "_oloellant = 75,800 T
"_ Facility = 700 T Facility = 41,700 T

Prop = 2,500 T _ Prop = 4 700 T
Prop.
-- o, oo
= 3,700 T _
o,
Figure 4-58. LRU Concept D Start-up Payload Requirements.
4-213
Table 4-65. Startup Mass Summary Comparison.
(Mass in metric tons)
Mall Depots & Total

Facilities Habitats Vehicles Propellant Personnel
Reference
earth Equivalent to 61 HLLV payloads 25,80Q
baseline
LRU
52,500 8,970 26,830 38,472t 1,224 127,996
Concept B
LRU
56,362 7,116 41,829 76,561" 2,359 184,227
Concept C
LRU
67,109 7,116 31,026 152,450" 2,359 260,060
Concept D
t Includes propellant to delivery 650T shielding from SMF to GEO
* Includes propellant to deliver 6,000 T shielding from lunar surface to GEO
4. 8.2 Start-up Period and Fleet Sizing Estimates
A three year start-up period was assumed for all three LRU concepts. If the start-up
period only considers use of vehicles and fleet sizes consistent wihh steady state operations,
then periods of 2 and 2.5 years might be possible for LRU Concepts B and C. Other
start-up logistics considerations, however, such as COTV construction in LEO and
checkout of in-space processing and manufacturing facilities, makes the selection of
three years more reasonable for each of the LRU concepts investigated. Tables
4-66, 4--67 and 4-68 for LRU C_ncepts B, C and D respectively, identify the
quantity of start-up flights needed for each vehicle, and resulting fleet size require-
ments for both start-up and steady state operations. The far right column identifies
total vehicle requirements including replacement vehicles for those which have exceeded
their design life. All chemical propulsion vehicle retirements were based on a 500
mission life, while a 50 mission life was used for ion electric COTV's.
The following description specifically applies to the data shown in Table 4-67 for
Concept C, but generally describes the methodology used to obtain vehicle flight
and fleet sizing requirements for start-up of all LRU concepts.
The minimum fleet size for start-up assumed the same quantity of vehicles required v
to support steady state operations. This is sensible since these vehicles must be
4.214
i_ Table 4-66. Start-up Operations for Concept B .
,,,1 i
Fleet Size Vehicles
Base Nominal Start-up
Location Start-up Trip Time 3-Year Steady +30 Yr
Vehicle Maint/Prop FIi_hts (Days) Start-up State Ops. Ops
i=
Space Earth 42 14 RT 2 2 3*
• Shuttle
SDV Earth 615 7RT 2 6,k
COTV LEO 4 < 180 OW 2 3

COT-v-_2 LEO/SMF 4 < 180 OW 2 3
COTV _ SMF 12 < 180 OW 3 4
POT% ,4 LEO/all 50 7-9 RT 3 3=
PLTV Moon/LLO 52 7 RT 1 1"
*Based on 500 flight life: COTV's assumed life = 50 flights
Table 4-67. Start-up Operations for Concept C.
Fleet Size Vehicle__

Location Start-up Trip Time 3- Year Steady -_30 Yr
Vehicle Maint/Prop Fli,ghts (Days) Start-up S_te Ops Ops
Space Earth 80 14 RT 2 4"
Shuttle
SDV Earth 892 7 RT 6 9 _¢
!COTV LEO 4 < 180 OW 2 3

ICOTV LEO/LLO I0 < 180OW 5 6
:co _ 2 GEO/LLO 9 < 180 OW 3 4
POTV 3 LEO/all 82 7-9 RT 2 4*
L7%" Moon 97 7RT 7 23*
*Based on 500 flight llfe: COTV's assumed life = 50 flights
Table 4-68. Start-up Operations for Concept D.
Fleet Size Vehicles

Location Start-up Trip Time 3 -Year Steady +30 Yr
Vehicle Maint/Prop Flights (Davs) Start-up State Ops Ops.
Space Earth 80 14 RT 2 2 4*
Shuttle
SDV E arth 1269 7 RT 9 2
COTV LEO 4 <I 80 OW 2 2 3
COTV I LEO/LLO 20 <I 80 OW 3 3 4
COTV_ 2 GEO/LLO 9 <180 OW 3 3 4
POTV 3 LEO/all 82 7-9 RT 2 2 4*
LDR Moon 138 7 RT 7 7 23*
*Based on 500 flight life: COTV's assumed life = 50 flights
4-215
delivered to their use location during start-up anyway. Subsequent evaluation indicated
that except for SDV, steady state fleet requirements were adequate for start-up
payload delivery. Earth launch of start-up cargo requires 892 SDV flights. Based
on nominal steady state 7 day round trip times, 6 vehicles must be available to
deliver 179,017 T in 3 years. During 30 years of steady state Concept C operations,
a total of 118 × 30 = 3,540 SDV launches are required. Total SDV flights for start-up
plus steady state equal 4,432 which requires 9 vehicles have a 500 mission design life.
To support start-up, six of the nine SDV's are produced and flown on 1 flight/week/
vehicle schedules. Following start-up the flight schedule decreases to 1 flight every
3 weeks/vehicle to support steady state operations.
COTV start-up payload delivery missions must be planned so that the COTV ends up at
its proper steady state location. Thus COTV 1 and COTV 2 must complete start-up in LEO,
while COTV 3 must finish at LLO. COTV 3 will be initially used during start-up for payload
delivery to GEO. The schedule for each COTV 3 will probably be:
COTV 3 = LEO-_I GEO-_2LEO-_ 3 LLO 3(3 Vehicles)= 9 Flights
The COTV 2 and CCTV 1 schedules will be one of the following:
COTV 2 = LEO-_I GEO 2-_LEO 2(5 Vehicles) = 10 Flights
LEO -,--LLO -,.-LEO
= LEO-_ 1 GEO 2_LEO 2(2 Vehicles) = 4 Flights

COTV 1
As sho_,n in Tables 4-66 through 68, the only start-up vehicle requirements which
exceed total vehicle requirements are the PLTV in Concept B (for contingency
personnel transfer from lunar surface), and the SDV in Concept D, which requires
one more vehicle for start-up (9) than is needed to complete the total 30 year
program. A slightly longer start-up period of three years and one month will
reduce the SDV requirement to 8 vehicles which is consistent with total fleet requlre-
ments.
4-216
4.8.3 Earth Launched Payload Comparison
Total earth launched payload for start-up plus steady state operations is plotted as a
function of time for the earth baseline (Concept A) and LRU Concept B, C & D in
Figure 4-59. Start-up payload requirements for LRU Concepts B, C & D occur over
a three year period and have been previously identified. Start-up for Concept A is
equivalent to 61 HLLV flightsin one year, or 26 kT, per the NASA-JSC earth baseline.
Steady state earth payload requirements were obtalned for 1 SPS/year from the steady
state material logistics scenarios developed for both concepts.
Concept A Mass/Year _ 15.14(97,550) - 147°7kT/year

10
1.38 (98,380 i
Concept B Mass/Year
= 10 = 13.6 kT/year
2.41 (98,380)
Concept C Mass/Year
= 10 = 23.7 kT/year
1.54 (98,380)
Concept D Mass/Year m
= 15.2 kT/year
10
Total mass for start-up plus 30 years of operations:
ConceptA = 25.8+30 (147.7) =4,457 kT
ConceptB = 128+30 (13.6)=535kT
ConceptC = 184.2+30 (23.7) = 895kT
ConceptD = 260.1 +30 (15.2) =715kT
The earth launched payload cross-over occurs for all three LRU concepts during year
two of steady state operations, or a maximum of five years from initiation of LRU
start-up. Total earth Iaunched payload for Concept C is the highest for all LRU con-
cepts at 20 percent of the earth baseline after 30 years of operation. This difference
is significant even though lunar resources are being recovered and utilized with Con-
cept C but not A. The earth launched payload requirement for lunar resource con-
4-217
5xl 06 I
4xl 06
3xl 06
LRU CONCEPT C
LRU CONCEPT D
LRU CONCEPT
I I I I I I
3 0 5 10 15 20 25 3O
•4-.---- I --.--. STEADY STATE OPERATIONS TO CONSTRUCT 1 SPS/YEAR
START-UP
(YEARS)
Figure 4-59. Earth launched payload comparison.
cepts does include all non-terrestrial material utilization support elements such as
processing chemicals, personnel, life support provisions, and supplies. The lowest
earth payload requirement is for LRU Concept B at 12 percent of the earth baseline
after 30 years of operation.
4-218
4.9 UPDATED IN-SPACE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS ESTIMATE
Initialestimates for personnel requirements at in-space activitylocations were needed
early in the study to develop material requirements scenarios. These crew estimates
were grossly derived from earth baseline personnel needs of 480 persons in LEO to
manufacture e_rth delivered satellitecomponents into major SPS modules, and 60
persons in GEO to assemble these SPS modules into complete satellitesand perform
maintenance. LRU scenario personnel are needed to perform lunar material acquisition,
processing, stock manufacturing, and component manufacturing in addition to these
earth baseline tasks. By assuming that these additional activitiescould be highly auto-
mated and were inherently less labor intensive than satellitefinal assembly, a LRU
personnel requirements factor of slightlyless than 3 was used. Thus, approximately
1500 crew members were allocated to activitylocations based on initialassumptions
regarding the assignment of manufacturing tasks.
LRU Concept B assumed that all processing and manufacturing was accomplished at the
SMF, with lunar activity limited to mining and material transport. This concentration
of production personnel at one location appeared to offer certain economies and re-
sulted in slightly lower total crew size requirements than concepts having multiple
production locations. Subsequent facility sizing analyses in Subsection 4.5 and
Appendix D did not identify any requirement for revising Concept B's initial personnel
allocations.
LRU Concepts C and D initially assumed that almost all material processing through
component manufacturing operations occurred on the moon, while SMF activities con-
sisted of module subassembly and SPS final assembly. This resulted in a large lunar
base population (1,365 people) and modest SMF crew size (200 people). During sub-
sequent definition of manufacturing facility requirements, it became obvious that a
large percentage of these lunar facilities should instead be located at the SMF. The
SMF location was more desirable for three reasons; 1) the manufactured product was
extremely fragile, resulting in difficult packaging requirements for high thrust transfer
4-219
from the lunar surface, 2) the manufactured product had very low density resulting
in inefficient transfer packaging, and 3) a substantial percentage of the finished pro.
duct consisted of earth supplied material. For these reasons most of the product and
component manufacturing facilities were located at the SMF along with the SPS assem-
bly facilities. This revised the personnel allocation estimate to 400 on the lunar
surface and 1,165 at the SMF.
The detailed space facility definitions and start-up mass estimates prepared for the
cost analysis and documented in Appendix D of Volume 1TI provide the data needed to
update our preliminary personnel estimates. Crew assignments have been consistently
made on a system element basis via four work categories:
1) Operations - personnel who oversee the automated operation of produc_on equip-
ment and perform routine tasks associated with the manufacturing of materials
or products.
2) Maintenance - personnel responsible for continuous efficient operation of auto-

%j
mated production equipment and support facilities. Perform routine preventive
maintenance and repair "down" machinery.
3) Support- personnel who oversee those service functions and facilities which are
required to meet the physiological needs of space workers. These include food
service, sanitation, environmental control, medical staff, janitorial services,
communications, recreational programs, etc.
4) Supervisory- personnel responsible for the overall planning and operation of space
facilities and production pro_rams.
Crew requirements were allocated on a system element basis as shown in Tables
4-69 and 4-70 for LRU Concept B and Concepts C aid D respectively. Several guide-
lines were used in developing the allocations shown:
a) Three shift operation was assumed for all mining, processing, and manufacturing,
and assembly operations.

V
b) Supervisory personnel at each activity location were assumed to be approximately
10 percent of the total crew.
4-220
c) Support personnel at each activity location were assumed to be approximately
m
25 percent of the total crew.
d) The remaining personnel were distributed between operator and maintenance
functions, with a majority associated with maintenance. The proponderence of
maintenance personnel is due to the high level of automation assumed for space
manufacturing facilities. In addition to the basic automated processing and pro-
duction equipment, industrial robots have been included for materials handling,
machine feeding, and machine unloading tasks. The quantity of robots which
perform these routine production tasks and are overseen by operators has been
estimated as 1,651, or 3.8 robots for each human operator. For LRU Concept B
all of these robots are located at the SMF. Concepts C&D have approximately
30 robots at the lunar base and the remainder (1,621) at the SMF°
The total requirement for in-space personnel obtained from Tables 4-69 and 4-70 is
not appreciably different from that initially assumed. Table 4-71 shows a comparison
t
of our initial personnel estimates for EMR development, the revised allocation
employed for facility sizing during the start-up analyses and the results of this update
based on developing personnel requirements via system element task estimates. Total
personnel have increased by 9 percent for Concept B, and 6 percent for Concepts C&D.
This corresponds to an earth payload requirement increase of less than one percent for
any of these concepts, which is insignificant.
Table 4-69. Concept B Personnel Estimate.
Lunar Base .Operators Maint _ Supervisory Total
Mine 6 3 1 1 11
Beneflciate 1 1 - 2
Glass Bag Mfg 3 1 1 8

Packaging ._ 3
Catapult 3 6 1 2 12
Power Station 3 3 - - 6
Habitat 4 12 2 18
P LTV 2 1 - - 3
17 21 16 6 60
4-221
Table 4-69. ConceptB Personnel Estimate (continued).
SMF (_ 2:1 Res) Operators Main_____t Support Supervisory Total
Beneficiate 3 1 1 - 5
Process 12 12 3 3 30
Refining 12 18 3 3 36
Stock Mfg 21 21 6 6 54
Parts Mfg 45 54 9 12 120
Component Mfg 33 45 12 12 102
Solar Cells Mfg 66 105 30 30 231
Propellant Mfg 6 15 3 3 27
105 30 40 400
Final Assembly
Sub Assembly i! 225
Prop Depot 3 6 1 1 11
Power Station 3 12 5 2 22
Habitat 6O 24O 3O 330
POTV's 5 3 3 1 12
COTV' s 6 3 1 10
Catcher 6 3 1 10
434 469 352 145 1400
GEO
Sat Maintenance - 24 9 6 39
Prop Depot 1 1 2
Power Station 1 1 2
Habitat 4 9 1 14
POTV's ___2 __.!l .__ __
4 31 18 7 60
LEO
Power Station 1 1 2
Habitat - 4 9 1 14
POTV's 6 6 1 1 14
COTV' s - 3 1 4
Cargo Handling _ _ _ _ i___5
19 22 14 5 60
ITotal for
Concept B I 474 543 400 163 1580
Initial Estimate 1449
A 131
4-222
Table 4-70. Concepts C and D Personnel Estimates.
Lunar Base Operators Maint Support Supervisory Total
Mine 12 6 3 2 23
Beneficiate 3 3 1 I 8
Process 18 18 6 4 46
Refining 12 18 3 3 36
Stock Mfg 21 21 6 6 54
Parts Mfg 6 6 - i 13
Cargo Handling 15 3 3 2 23
Propellant Mfg 12 18 6 3 39
Prop Depot 3 6 1 i 11
Habi tat - 18 70 12 100
LTV' s 6 12 3 2 23
Ill 141 108 40 4OO
SMF (@ GEO)
Parts Mfg 45 54 9 12 120

Component Mfg 33 45 12 12 102
Solar Cell Mfg 66 105 30 30 231
Sub
Fhml Assembly
Assembly _ 225 105 30 40 400
J
Sat. Maintenance - 24 9 6 39
Prop. Depot 3 3 1 1 8
Habitat - 45 180 24 249
POTV's 6 6 3 1 16
COTV's - 9 6 2 17
381 405 283 131 1200
LEO
Power Station 1 1 2
Habitat - 4 9 1 14
POTV's 6 6 1 1 14
COTV's - 3 1 4
Cargo Handling 9 2 2 2 15
19 22 14 5 60
Concepts
I rrOtal fOr
C_D I 511 568 405 176 1660
Initial Estimate 1565
A + 95
4-223
Table 4-71. LRU In-Space Personnel Requirements. %.J
LUNAR
LRU CONCEPT LEO GEO SMF BASE TOTAL
B
Initial Assumption 0 36 1365 48 1449
Facility Sizing 0 36 1365 48 ]449

Task Estimate 60 60 ]400 60 1580
C&D
Initial A s sumption 0 (SMF) 200 1365 1565
Facility Sizing 0 (SMF) ]]65 400 ]565
Task Estimate 60 (SNIF_ ]200 400 ]660
4-224
REFERENCES
lo
Cowgill, Lane, "Low Acceleration Transfers from Low Earth Orbit to Low
Lunar Orbit - Analysis for Lunar Resources Utilization Study," General
Dynamics Convair Division Memo 697-0-78-070, Draft Copy, 9 August 1978.
.
Woodcock, G. R., et. al., "Future Space Transportation Systems Analysis
Study." Contract NAS9-14323, Boeing Aerospace Company Report D180-
20242-3, December 31, 1976.
.
Handbook of Lunar Materials, Lunar and Planetary Sciences Division, NASA-
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, May 1978.
I
Howard, K., Heat, J., and Swan, G., "Geology of Hadley Rille, " Proc. Lunar
Science Conference, 3rd, 1972, pp. 1-14.
a
Wattdns, J'., and Kovach, R., "Seismic Investigations of the Lunar Regolith,"
Proc. Lunar Science _onference, 4th, 1973, pp. 2561-2574.
1
Ulrich, G. E., "A Geologic Model for North Ray C rater and Stratigraphic
Implications for the Dexartes Region," Proc. Lunar Science Conference, 4th,
1973, pp. 27-39.
o
Howard, K., Wilhelms, D., and Scott, D., "Lunar Basin Formation and High-
land Stratigraphy," Rev. of Geophys. and Space Physics, Vol. 12, n. 3, 1974,
pp. 309-327.
.
Anon. : Space Settlements - A Design Study, 1975 NASA Am es/OAST Summer
Faculty Fellowship Program in Engineering System Desig-n, NASA SP-413,
NASA Science and Technical Information Office, 1977.
.
Heppenheimer, T. A., "Guidance and Trajectory Considerations in Lunar Mass
Transportation," AIAA Journal, VoI. 15, No. 4, April 1977, pp. 518-525.
10. Carrier, W. D., "Lunar Strip Mining Analysis," Chapter HI of "Extraterrestrial
Materials Processing and Construction," Final Report on Contract NSR 09-051-
001, M.d. No. 24, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas, 30 Sept. 1978.
11. Butler, J., Green, G., and King, E., "Grain Size Distribution and Modal
Analyses of Apollo 16 Fines., "Proceedings of the 4th Lunar Sciences Conf.,
1973, pp. 267-278.
12. Inoulet, Ion I., "Benefleiation of Lunar Soils," Chapter IV of "Extraterrestrial

Materials Processing and Construction," Final Report on Contract NSR 09-051-
001, M.d. No. 24, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas, 30 Sept. 1978.
13.
Waldron, R. D., Erstfeld, T. E., and Criswell, D. R., "Processing of Lunar
and Asteroids/Material," Section II"Iof "Extraterrestrial Materials Processing
and Construction," Mid-Term Report on Contract NAS 09-051-001, 24 April 1978.
4-225
14. Langseth, M.D., and Heilun, S. J., '_n Situ Measurements of Lunar Heat
Flow," The Soviet-American Conference on Cosmochemlstry of the Moon and
Planets, June 4-8, 1974. NASA SP-370, Patti, 1977, pp. 283-293.
15. Mackenzie, J. D., "Glass and Ceramic Projects from Lunar Materials,"
Prepared under NASA Contract NAS 09-051-001, Extraterrestrial Materials
Processing and Construction, June 1978.
16. Kesterke, D. G., "Electrowinnlng of Oxygen from SilicateRocks," Bureau of

Mines Report of Investigations RI 7587, 1971.
17. Henson, H. K., and Drexler, K.E., "Vapor-Phase Fabrication of Massive

Structures in Space."
18. Drex/er, K.E., and Henson, H. K., "Design of Equipment for Vapor-Phase
Processing of Metals," Lunar Utilization, Abstracts of Paper presented at a
Special Session of the Seventh Annual Lunar Science Conference, 16 March 1976.
19. Schiller, S., Fo@rst@r, H., and Jaesch, G., "Possibilities and Limitations of
Large-Scale Electron-Beam Evaporation," J. Vac. Sci., Technol., Vol. 12,
No. 4, July/August 1975, pp. 800-806.
20. Schiller, S., and Jaesch, G., "Deposition by Electron Beam Evaporation with
Rates of up to 50 _m/sec," Paper presented at Third Conference on Metallur-
gical Coatings, San Francisco, 3-7 April, 1978.
21. Bunshah, 1%. F., "Structure/Property Relationships in Evaporated Thick Films

and Bulk Coatings," J. Vac° Sci. Technol., Vol. ii, 1974, p. 633.
22. Phinney, %%'.C., Criswell, D., Drexler, E., and Garmirian, J., "Lunar
Resources and Their Utilization°"
23. Holmes, R.F., and Keller, E. E., "Bosch CO2 Reduction System, Endurance
Program - Final Report." Report No. CASD-NAS-77-026, October, 1977.
24. Movchan, B.A., Demchishin, A. V., and Kooluck, L. D., "Structure and
Mechanical Properties of Thick Fe, Fe-NbC, Fe-N-hrbC Condensates," E. O.
Paton Welding Institute, Acacemy of Sciences, VKr., S. S. R, J. Vac. Soc.
Technol., Vol. ii, No. 5, September/October 1974, pp. 869, 874.
25. Demidovich, Boris K., "Manufacture and Use of Foam Glass," Army Foreign
Science and Technology Center, Charlottesville, Virginia, 25 October, 1974,
Report No. AD/A-00S819.
26. Oakseson, W. G., et. al., "Foam Glass Insulation from Waste Glass," Univer-
sity of Utah, EPA-600/3-77-030, August 1977.
27. Pittsburgh Coming Corporation Bulletin, Foamglas, Cellular Glass Insulation,

May 1977.
28. Park, K.D., and Weitzman, E. J., "Glass Layer Evaporation," J. Vac. Sci.
Technol., Vol. 14, No. 6, November/December 1977, pp. 1318-1319.
4-226
29. Mackenzie, J. D., "Glass and Ceramic Projects from Lunar Materials,"
Prepared under NASA Contract NAS 09-051-001, Extraterrestrial Materials
Processing and Construction, June 1978.
30. Ho, Darwin, "Extraterrestrial Fiberglass Production Using Solar Ener_cry, ,,

ii ki_7
1977 Summer Study, Space Settlements and Manufacturing, Sponsored by NASA
Ames Research Center, Palo Alto, California.
31. Wolf, M., "Outlook for Si Photovoltaic Devices for Terrestrial Solar-Energy
Utilization," J. Vac. Sci. Technol., Vol. 12, No. 5, September/October 1975,
pp. 984-999.
Personal Communcation, Morton B. Prince, D.O.E., Division of Solar Tech.
Wald, Fo V., "EFG Silicon Ribbon-Status Report," Proceesings: 9th Project

Integration Meeting, Low-Cost Solar Array Project, 11-12 April, 1978, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory Report 5101-67, ppo 3-65 to 3-73.
Mineral Facts and Problems, Bureau of Mines Bulletin 667, 1975 Edition, p. 993.
Reference 33, Section III, Technology Development Area, Silicon Material Task,
pp. 3-1, 3-2.
36. Reference 33, Section IV, Production Process and Equipment Area, Automated
Arty Assembly Task, pp. 4-1 and 4-59.
37. Phinney, W. C., Criswell, D., Drexler, E., and Garmirian, J., "Lunar
Resources and Their Utilization," Lunar and Planetary Sciences Division,
Johnson Space Flight Center.
38.
Arnold, J. R., 'rice in the Lunar Polar Regions," University of California,
S an Diego.
39.
Heald, D. A., et al, "Orbital Propellant Handlirg and Storage Systems for
Large Space Programs,,, Final Report No. CASD-ASIX-78-001 (JSC 13967),
General Dynamics Convair Division, San Diego, California, 14 April 1978.
40.
Anon. : "Space Station Definition, ,, Final Report, McDonnell Douglas Astro-
nautics Co., July 1970, (Contract NAS8-25140).
41. Anon. : "Solar Powered Space Station," Final Report, North American Rockwell
Space Division, Report No. SD70-159-1 (MSC-00720), July 1970 (Contract
NAS9- 9953).
42.
Anon. : "Modular Space Station,,, Final Report,McDonnell Douglas Astronautics
Co., Nov 1971, (Contract NAS8-25140).
43. Anon. : "Modular Space Station ," Final Report, North American Rockwell
Space Division, Report No. SD71-217-1 (MSC-02471), January, 1972
(Contract NASg- 9953).
44.
Anon. : Space Station Systems Analysis, Final Report, Grumman Aerospace
Corp., 27 July 1977 (Contract NAS8-31993).
4-227
45. Anon. : Space Station Systems Analysis Study, Final Report, McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics Co., 1977 (Contract NAS9-14958).
46. Anon. : Lunar Base Synthesis Study Final Report, North American Rockwell,
Report No. SD71-477-1, 15 May 1971 (Contract NAS8-26145).
47. Anon. : Design of a Lunar Colony, 1972 NASA/ASEE Systems Design

Institute, Sept. 1972 (NASA CR-129164).
48. Vjak, J. Peter, et al: Habitat and Logistic Support Requirements for the
Initiation of a Space Manufacturing Enterprise, 1977 NASA-Ame s/OAST
Summer Study on Space Settlements and Industrialization.
49. Chriswell, David R., Initial Lunar Supply Base: Resources and Con-
struction, 1977 NASA Ames/OAST Summer Study on Space Settlements and
Industrialization.
50. Anon. : Space Settlements - A Design Study, 1975 NASA Ames/OAST Summer
Faculty Fellowship Program in Engineering System Design, NASA SP-413
NASA Science & Technical Information Office, 1977.
51. Driggers, G., & Newmar, J. : Establishment of a Space Manufacturing

Facility, 1976 NASA Ames/OAST Study on Space l%fanufacturlng from Non-
Terrestrial Materials, November 25, 1976.
52. Bock, Edward H., Effect of Environmental Parameters on Habitat Structural %J

Weight and Cost, 1977 NASA Ames/OAST Summer Study on Space Settle-
ments and Industrialization.
53.
Haffner, J. W. Radiation and Shielding In Space, Academic Press N.Y.
1976.
54. French, F. W., "Solar Flare Radiation Protection Requirements for

Passive and Active Shields,', Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 7,
No. 7, pgs. 794-800.
55. "A Recommended Preliminary Baseline Concept," NASA-JSC Satellite Power

System (SPS) Concept Evaluation Program Presentation Brochure, Dated
January 25, 1978.
56. "Solar Power Satellite Concept Evaluation," Activities Report July 1976 to
June 1977, Volume 2 Detailed Report, July 1977 (NASA JSC Red Book).
57. "Electric Propulsion System for Lunar Resource Utilization for Space
Construction," Letter to E. H. Bock from John D. Regetz, Jr., NASA-
Lewis Research Center, Dated June 27, 1978.
58. Kolm, H., O'Neill, G. K., et. al., "Electromagnetic Mass Drivers,,'
1976 NASA Ames/OAST Study, Space Manufacturing from Nonterrestrial
Materials Volume for Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics Series,
Preprint Dated November 25, 1976.
. 4-228
59. Kolm, H., O'Neill, G. K., et. al., "Mass Driver Applications,', 1976 NASA
Ames/OAST Study, SameSource as Reference 58.
60. Heppenheimer, T. A. ,"The Lunar Mass Transport Problem in Space
Colonization;' Paper Reprint, AAS/AIAA Astrodynamic Specialist Conference,
Jackson Hole, WY, Sept 7-9, 1977.
61. Heppenheimer, T. A., "Steps Toward Space Colonization: Colony Location and
Transfer Trajectories," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol 15. No. 5,
Sept/Oct 1978, Page 305.
%.J
4-229
%
ECONOMIC ANALYSES (TASKS 5.3, 5o4 & 5.6)
I
Aside from considerations dealing with technical feasibility, cost is probably the
most important measure in determining the desirability of a scenario. Assuming
that one scenario, whether earth, space or lunar based, is equal to the next in
meeting program specifications, the question becomes one of determining which
scenario is the most cost effective. The purpose of the economic analysis tasks
in this study was to do just that. Not only were costs for each alternative program
determined, but the uncertainty attached to those costs was determined as well.
Two other factors useful in making economic comparisons: time phased funding
spreads and present value of costs were also determined. The economic analysis
portion of the study was divided into three major task areas: Cost Analysis,
F_
Uncertainty Analysis, and Funding Spread/Present Value Analysis. These are brief-
ly described in the following paragraph and in more detail in Sections 5.1 through
5.5. Figure 5-0 shows the contents of each major task area and the general order
of task performance.
COST ANALYSIS-
The documentation of the cost tasks is contained in Sections 5.1 through 5.3. The
purpose of the cost analysis is to compare the program costs of each LRU concept with
the Earth Baseline costs provided by NASA/JSC in a baseline concept brochure dated
25 January 1978. In order to provide consistent comparisons a WBS was developed
that was compatible with all concepts. The Earth Baseline costs were categorized
into this WBS for comparison with the LRU concepts.
The approach to total program cost determination for the LRU concepts was to first
develop the costs of the primary elements (i. e., processing and manufacturing,
transportation and infrastructures) and then assemble them into the WBS for com-
k.J parison with the baseline. Comparisons were then made and differences in production
5-1
costs were reconciled in order to explain maj or cost differences and to identify
areas of uncertainty or omission. Finally, a determination was made of the nominal
thresholds where lunar resource utilization becomes more cost effective. Subsequent
study tasks, including the discount analysis and cost uncertainty analysis, used the
nominal costs determined in this task as a base.
UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS-
The uncertainty analysis complements and expands the cost analysis in Sections 5.1,
5.2 and 5.3. The discussion of this analysis is contained in Section 5.4. The nominal
costs in Sections 5.1 and 5.3 represent point cost estimates which are based on
historical data, direct quotes, analyst judgment and extrapolations of previous cost
estimates. There is a great deal of uncertainty associated with these point cost
estimates in the areas of supply/demand shifts, unknowns in the space/lunar based
manufacturing chain and the state of definition of the hardware and program character-
istics. The uncertainty analysis is an attempt to quantify that uncertainty. It provides
a measure of confidence in our ability to accurately compare future conceptual

V
projects and significantly affects the economic threshold point where the LRU con-
cepts become cost effective.
FUNDING SPREAD/PRESENT VALUE --
The funding spread and present value analyses shed a slightly different light on
program cost comparisons. Nominal cost estimates consider the magnitude of cost
but not the timing of the required expenditures. A funding spread analysis allows
timing to be considered. The present value analysis allows consideration of both the
timing of cash flows and the time value of money. The results of these analyses are
presented in Section 5.5.
S-2
Task 5.4 (cost analysis)
• WBS development
* Earth baseline cost documentation
• LRU element cost development
* LRU system cost development
• Reconciliation of production costs
• Nominal threshold determination
Task 5.6 (uncertainty analysis)

* Quantify uncertainty
• Determine crossover points as function
of uncertainty range
• Identify key cost drivers
Funding spread & present value analysis

• Funding spread
-- Considers timing as well as magnitude

of expenditures
• Present value
-- Considers time value of money as well as

magnitude & timing of expenditures
Figure 5- 0. Economic Analysis Task Flow.
5-3
EARTH MANUFACTURED SPS BASELINE
5.1
Lunar Resources Utilizationscenarios were compared with the earth
manufactured SPS baseline identifiedby JSC in "A Recommended Preliminary
Baseline Concept", a briefing dated January 25, 1978. Costs identifiedin the
baseline document were utilized to provide the desired program cost infor-
mation, either directly or through manipulation. An additional source of cost
information was the JSC document, SatellitePower System (SPS) Concept
Evaluation Program, dated July 1977.
In order to use the baseline cost data effectively the Cost Work Breakdown
Structure (WBS) was organized such that it is compatible with the lunar
resource utilization options costs. In this section a cost WBS is developed
and earth baseline costs are organized under its elements. "
5.1.1 Cost Work Breakdown Structure
The establishment of a flexible and comprehensive cost work breakdown structure
(WBS} is important in assuring that valid cost comparisons are made in the
comparative evaluation process. The cost WBS must assure that costs for
each manufacturing scenario are organized under the appropriate cost elements
and that like costs are compared with one another.
A cost WBS was developed and is shown in Fig_are 5-1. More detailed
breakdowns with element numbers are shown by program phase in Figures 5-2,
5-3 and 5-4. This WBS provides the organization necessary for deter-
mining the life cycle cost of each scenario as well as breaking out costs by
program phase or subelement. Once costs are established for each element,
figure of merit data can be derived from the appropriate subelements.
5-4
The WBS organization is basically derived from the categories in the SPS
baseline briefing document. Some allowance was also made for additional
categories not in the baseline which arise under the lunar scenarios or
during the program life. Elements are defined in Tables 5-1, 5-2 and 5-3.
5.1.2 SPS Baseline Life Cycle Cost
A determination was made of the baseline SPS system life cycle costs. This
data is presented in Table 5-4. All supporting data for determining costs is
contained in accompanying footnotes and in the figures in Appendix F.
Costs were broken down into three major program phases of the SPS system
life, according to the WBS developed in the previous section. The primary
source for these costs was the SPS Baseline document mentioned in Section
5.1.
Life Cycle Cost in this case is for the 30 year period from program inception
to construction completion of the thirtieth SPS system. Since the operational
phase duration has not been defined, the operations phase cost estimate
may result in an understated life cycle cost, because the program life
will probably be much longer than 30 years. For the 30 year program the
SPS baseline life cycle cost was found to be $913. 713 billion.
Total Program 100 /

Cost
/
I
I I I
I '°°°1 I 'on IOoe,a,,oo,
000
I
t,P,
hardw,r,
tEar"'a,eO'a",
Construction
Facilities
Transportation
system Lunar based fablassy
Space based fab/assy
Earth rectenna
Figure 5-1. Summary Cost Work Breakdown Structure.
5-5
1000
RDT&E
! I I I
1100 1300 1400
Facilities &
SPS ilardware Transportation
SystemC°nstrucli°n
1200_ 1 Equipment
[ ,,
/
/
11 ! 0 -]- Saletlile 310- Earlh based 1410- HLLV
/
1210 "1- Space constr, base
1120 -L Reclenna 1220 -'-- Equipment 311 *' Launch & recovery 1411 • Development
312 • Propellant prod. 1412 • Initial produclion
313 • SPS hardware
1420- PLV
/
320- Lunar based 1421 • Development
1330 -!- Space based
321 • Power slalion 1422 • Inilial production
1331 | - Power station
1332 | • Space habilats 322 • Lunar base habitat
323 • Mining equipment 1430- - POTV
1333 | • Space manufacturing lacitily
1334 | * Propel'lanl depols 324 • Boneliciation equipment 1431 • Development
0"_
1335 l • Benellclation equipment 325 • Processing lacility 1432 • Inilial production
1336 | * Processing facility 326 • Manulaclu[ing equipment
327 • Liquilaclion equipment 1440- -COTV
1337 i " Liquefaction equipment
32_ • Prope¢'mt depot 1441 • Development
/
1340 -.L Facilily aclivalion 1442 • Inilial production
1341 * Tfansporlalion
1342 * Initial depot supply 1450- - SDV
1343 • Conslruclion & maintenance crew 1451 • Development
1344 • Earlh based lacilily operalions 1452 • Production
1345 • Lunar based facility operalions i
1346 • Space based laciUly o,l_rali(ms 1480 -t" Mass driver 1460. - LTV/PLTV
1481 / • Development 1461 • Development
1462 • Production
1482 / • Produclion
1490 -L Mass catcher 1470- LDR
1491 • Development 1471 • Development
1492 • Production 1472 • Production
Figx=re 5-2. Development Cost Work Breakdown Structure.
(:,. { (
(!!!q .....
I Produclion 20001
I 1
2100
Earth Based 2200 I 23,00 ]
Fabrication & Assembly Fabrication & Fabrication &
Lunar Based Assembly I Space Based Assembly I
2110- SPS syslem hardware 2210 Construction & 2310 Construction &
2111 • Salellite maintenance crew maintenance crew
2112 • Earth reclenna
2220 Facility & equipment 2320 Facility & equipment
2120- Launch & recov fac opr operalio[=s operations
I 2121 • Facility maintenance 2221
",,'1
• Power station 2321 • Power station
2122 • Launch & recovery opr 2222 * Lunar base habitat 2322 • Space habilals
2223 - Mining equipment 2323
2130 • Space manufacluring
Transportation 2224 • Beneficalion equipment"
2131 facility
: Vehicle replacement 2225 • Processing lacilily 2324
2132 • Propetlant depot
• Vehicle maintenance 2226 * Manufacluring 2325
2133 • Beneflclation equipment
• Spares 2227 • 0 2 liquetaclion 2326 • Processing facility
2134 • Propellants & gases 2228 • Propellant depot 2327 • Liquetaclion equipmenl
2135 • SS user charges 2328 • Construction system
2230 Transportation 2330 TransporlaUon

2231 • Vehicle replacement 2331 • Velucle replacement
2232 • Vehicle mainlenance 2332 • Vehicle mainlenance
2233 • Spares 2333 • Spares
2234 • Propellanls & gases 2334 • Propellanls & gases
Figure 5-3. Production Cost Work Breakdown Structure.

r k.J
i Operation s 3000 ]
I
I
3100
Satellite [_arth 3200
ectenna [
3110 Maintenance 3210 Maintenance
3120 Logistics Support 3220 Logistics Support
3130 Transportation
Figure 5-4. Operations Cost Work Breakdown Structure
5.2 LUNAR RESOURCE UTILIZATION ELEMENT COSTS
In order to determine the points at which lunar resources utilization (LRU) becomes
cost effective the life cycle cost (LCC) of each of the three LRU options (Reference
Options B, C and D) must be compared with the Earth manufactured baseline costs
of Section 5.1. The purpose of this section is to develop the cost data necessary
for determining the LCC of each of the three options. The data and scaling relation-
ships developed can readily be used as a data source when LCC is determined in
Section 5.3 and provide a basis for cost estimates in the future if facility/transportation
element sizes change.
Due to the similarity of the LRU elements to the elements of previous NASA space
studies, most of the LRU element costs can be derived or scaled from those studies.
Existing cost estimates for space stations, space construction bases, orbital transfer
and launch vehicles can be readily applied to obtain cost relations for propellant depots,
habitats, facilities, vehicles and other LRU elements. The industry studies used as a
basis for the LRU element cost relations will be referenced in the discussion of each
individual element. Some LRU elements exhibit conceptual and innovative character-
istics which are not similar to previously studied space systems. For these elements
5-8
Table 5-1. RDT&E Phase Definitions
Cost Element Cost Element

Number Designation Definition
1000 RDT&E Phase

Includes the cost to develop elements necessary to put the first-system SPS
in operational use. Includes the development of the satellite and rectenna,
the development and production of construction equipment, manufacturing
facilities and transportation. Concepttml and program definition studies
are excluded.
1100 SPS llardware This Is the coat to desiglt and develop SPS system hardware: Satellite and
rcctenna systems.
1200 Construction Co'_t to design and fabricate the space construction system. The construction
System system includes all elements necessary to provide a space construction
capability. It excludes all material processing type facilities and is limited
to facilities and equipment necessary to construct/assemble elements in orbit.
It includes such items as habitats, cranes and Imam builders and the trans-
¢,D
portation for fabricating/constructing the construction system.
1300 Faci lities

This element refers to the cost to design and build the facilities to suplmrt
and Equipment the SPS prog_'am. It is broken down into three major categories, depending
on location: Earth Based, Lunar Based aud Space Baaed. Earth Based
facilities are those facilities required for vehicle latmch/recovery and
propellant and hardware production, lamar and Space Based facilities include,
(I) the facilities required for the manufacture of SPS elements, (2) facilities
which snpl_)rt Ihe manufacture, _ueh as habitats, (3) C_luipmcnt required to
support manufacturing such as i_)wer supply systems and lunar surface
logistics vehicles (4) hnmcll facilities, (5) aml propell.'mt pr_luctiou facilities.
1400 Tran.hporta tlon This element includ,_s the cost to dcsigll, develop and produce the initial
fleet of transportation vehicles r_luired for the SPS progl-am. Includes
vehicles identified in the JSC SPS baseline as well as other hmar and
lunar_space scenarios, included are: IILLV, PLV, POTV, COTV, OTV
passenger module, mass driver and mass catcher, terminal tug and lunar
transfer vehicle.
Table 5-2. Production Phase Definitions

N umber Designs tion Definition
2000 Production Plisse All material and activities necessary to fabricate and assemble the SPS
fleet are inchvled in this phase. It ltmludes facility and coIBIruction
system operations, hardware, and transportation vchicle replaceme=ll:
costs over the production period. Provisions are m:ide for fabricatiou
and assembly on earth, moon, space or a combination of those Iocatio,m.
2130 Earth based lnch,des all production activitics required to mamffacture and fabricate
Fabrication and SPS system hardware on earth and the costs to replace and maintain
Assembly vehicles as the initial fleet wears out. Also inelmtes the operations of
the ground facilities required for producing the SPS fleet. This includes
(1) the costa incurred in operating carth launch facilities and providing
launch, tracking, command and control, recovery and maintenance of
vehicles and of the launch/recovery facilities, (2) the cost of propellants
and gases for the launch vehicles and (3) the cost of SPS system hardware.
O1
!
Tile cost of maintaining and operating the propellant production and
p.a
hardware manufacturing facilities is included in tile cost of propellants and
hatxlware.
2200 Lunar Imsed This element includes all prodnctlon activities required to fabricate SI)S
Fabrication and systems at a hmar base. Includes hardware, operation of the manufacturing
Assembly facilities to fabricate stock materials, and hardware, logistics support
of habitats, and operation of tile launch facilities to transfer men and
material to tim construction orbit.
2300 Space Based This clemc,tt includes all pr(xiuction acUvities required to manufacture,
Fabrication and fabricate, assemble an,I construct the SPS systems in orbit. For space
Assembly based mannf:lcturing the category iilcludes cost of stock materials and
hardware ma,mfactured. This clemc,lt also includes the cost to nmintai,i
the space construction system, which includes habitats and the cquipnlcnt
necessary for on-orbit assembly.
(
.....7:'i_i-_7
FI;7
]i'i'Y
"]'i:i' " i_'i_!!i[
! ! 'i':_'_l?ll_i
' Ii _lfl_I:_ !!i!_!i_
C_ ii_,_,'
Table ._-3. Operations Phase

Number l)esignation Definition
3000 Operations Phase Cost of operating the SPS system, including the satellite and rectelma.
3100 Satellite Includes the coat of maintaining the satellite in operating condition.
Maintenance crew labor, spares and transportation costs required are
included.
3200 Earth Rectenna This element refers to the cost of maintaining tim earth based rectenna
system in operating condition and inchides maintenance, repair and spares.
I-t
Table 5-4. Earth Baseline Life Cycle Cost
Volume III
Cost Element Cost Appendix F
Number Designation (Billions of 77 _) References
IOO0 RDT&E Phase 70.586
1100 SPS Hardware 6.270 Fig. F-1
1200 Construction System 20.741

1210 Space Construction Base 20.741
1211 Development 6.939 Fig. F-1
1212 Fabrication 13._02 Fig. F-2
1300 Facilities & Equipment 16.666

1310 Earth Based 16. 666
1311 Launch/Recovery 2.8 Fig. F-3
1312 Propellant Production 3.5 Fig. F-3
1313 SPS Hardware 10. 366 Fig. F-1
1400 Transportation 26.909

1410 HLLV 17.826 Note 1
I
}.d 1411 Development 11.100
1412 Initial Fleet Production 6.726
1420 PLV 3.314
1421 Development 2.400 Fig. F-3
1422 Initial Fleet Production .914 Note 2,
1430 PO'FV 2.369 includes ET's
1431 Development 2.000
1432 Initial Fleet Production .369 Note 3
1440 COTV 3.400 Note 4
1442 Initial Fleet Production 1.700
2000 Production Phase 656.476
2100 Earth Based Fabrication & Assembly 619.996

2110 SPS System tI.ardware 401. 391
,
li,i
(
[ ;:i:..... ;
i
I _i;i li[li[ii[ii _i!

/ (!il !,!II !i
Table 5-4. Earth Baseline Life Cycle Cost (continued)

Volume III
Cost Element Cost Appendix F
Number Designation References
(Billions of 77 $)
2111 Satellite 268. 011 .Note 5
2112 • Earth Rectenna 133.38 Note 6
2120 Launch/Recovery Facility Operations 4.20O
2121 Facility Maintenance 4.200
2122 Launch & Recovery Operations 0
2130 Transportation 214. 405
2131 Vehicle Replacement 70.945 Note 8
2132 Vehicle Maintenance 118.257 Note 8
2133 Spares 0 Note 8
2134 Propellants/Gases 25.203 Note 8
2200 Lunar Based Fabrication & Assembly 0
2300 Space Based Fabrication & Assembly 36. 480
2320 Construction System Operations 36.480
O1 Note 9
!
b.a
¢.O 3000 Operations Phase a 186.651
3100 SatelLite 124.629 Noto 10
3200 Earth Rectenna 62.022 Note 10
100 TOTAL PROGRAM COST 913. 713
NOTE: 1. Referenced notes and figures are contained in Appendix F.

(e.g., mass driver) costs will be based on: (1) specialist estimates, (2) direct
analogies to similar industrial products or services, and (3) cost estimating relation-
ships.
The end result of this portion of the study task was a cost handbook for the LRU study.
It provides a means of costing the maj or elements of any lunar resource option as a
function of their size. Due to the length of the cost derivations they were inserted
in Appendix G. A summary of cost elements contained in that appendix is as follows:
Propellant Depot
Habitats
LEO Modular Space Station Lunar Based Habitat (Small Crew)
GEO Modular. Space Station Large Lunar Base (Shuttle Tanks)
Temporary Shelter Space Manufacturing Facility
Transportation
Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle LRU Personnel'Orbital Transfer Vehicle
Personnel Launch Vehicle LRU Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicle
Personnel Orbital Transfer Vehicle Lunar Transfer Vehicle
Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicle Personnel Lunar Transfer Vehicle
Passenger/Crew Modules Lunar Derived Rocket
Shuttle Derived Vehicle Mass Catcher
Space Shuttle Mass Driver Catapult
Earth Based Facilities
Propellant Production
Launch/Re covery
LRU Manufacturing Facilities and Equipment
Lunar Mining Equipment Liquefaction Equipment
Lunar Material Beneficiation Equipment Manufacturing Facilities
Processing Facility
Power Stations
Photovoltaic Power
Nuclear Power
5-14
5.3 TOTAL PROGRAM COST OF THE LRU OPTIONS
! 5.3.1 COSTS. The economics of using lunar resources as an alternative to earth
resources is dependent upon the abilityto acb/eve the same end product at a lower
cost. Cost effectiveness analyses must be performed to determine if the lunar re-
sources alternative is a desirable one. This not only includes consideration of total
program costs in undiscounted constant dollars but also using discounted dollars and
cost uncertainty factors.
Before performing any sort of economic analysis, a cost base must be established for
each LRU option, on which comparisons with the Earth Baseline may be made. It is
the purpose of this section to provide that cost base. Costs for each LRU option are
categorized into the same Work Breakdown Structure (l_S) as the Earth Baseline,
giving Development, Production, Operations and Total Program Cost. The Cost WBS
was previously discussed in Section 5.1.1 and is summarized in Figures 5-1 through
F _
5-4. Definitions of the cost elements were provided in Tables 5-1 through 5-3.
Program Costs for each LRU option are provided in Tables 5-5 , 5-6 and 5-7 . Notes
to the tables, which provide a detailed explanation of cost derivation, are contained in
Appendix H. The costs shown are based on the LRU element costs in Section 5.2 and
on the following ground rules/assumptions:
1. Costs are expressed in constant year 1977 dollars. Current prices are assumed.
No attempt was made to adjust costs for changes in future supply and demand.
2. Satellites will be produced at a rate of 1 per year for 30 years. Operations Costs
are limited to the 30-year period, starting with the operation of one satellite in
the first year and ending with the operation of 30 satellites in the 30th year.
3. The following costs are the same for the Earth Baseline and LRU Concepts:
SPS Hardware Development (Satellite & Rectenna)
Earth Recterma Production
Development/Fabrication of Orbiting Construction Systems
5-15
4. No new earth based SPSHardware Manufacturing Facilities are required for the
LRU concepts. The following earth supplied production items were assumed to be
purchased from existing earth suppliers:
-- Earth Rectennas
-- Any satellite equipment which cannotbe fabricated in space or material not

available from the lunar soil
5. Earth based support facilities such as mission control, administration and sustain-
ing engineering were assumed to be existing and no charges were included for these
facilities in either the Earth Baseline or the LRU Concepts. The recurring cost of
manning and operating these facilities in support of the lunar/space based manu-
facturing is assumed to be 3% per year of the cost to fabricate the manufacturing
facilities.
6. The requirements for lunar and space based launch facilities are assumed minimal
and no costs were included for their development or construction.
7. Lunar resources are not used to fabricate the lunar and space based facilities.
They are fabricated on earth, then transported to final location and assembled
during the facility activation phase.
8. The lunar and space based facilities in all LRU Concepts are o_-ned and operated
by a single entity who is in business for the purpose of selling power for profit.
This entity uses the facilities to manufacture and construct the SPS fleet and
purchases from earth only those materials not available from the lunar soil. The
Earth Baseline costs are based on the normal way of doing business on earth
today in that the entity purchases, rather than manufactures, the majority of SPS
hardware from independently owned, earth based firms.
Table 5-8 provides a summary comparison of alternative program costs. On a
nominal basis, without regard to uncertainty or other economic factors, the LRU con-
cepts appear to be more cost effective than the Earth Baseline. On a total program
cost basis Concept B is 66% of the Earth Baseline costs with Concepts C and D
5--16
j
"_ "_ "S uoDoeS uT pessnos_p eq iT.U_ uo._!TTOUOOe,i
_q_ _o s_InseT _q_ "s_ou_/_!p _sokn _I_UOOeT o_ p_pp_ S_a_ _IS_ A_U 13_TUSe_ _ s_
'pu_ '_u.ls_dans _qA_su/os _aeA_ es_qcl uoDonpo_d _q_ u! soouea_/]!p e_a_ l oq_L "soa._
_ _1
-_uxo_I_ flHq 8q_ u._s_u_u_81o uoD_*odsul_ pul_seDTi._o_ _o _unou/_ _eSI_ I oq_ o_ onp
i
ps_o_dxe e_eA_ s_soo X_ZCI_ u_ seous;8_]._p8q_L "XleADoeds8_ _T_ pu_ _ZA _ Su_ollo_
Table 5- 5 . LRU Option B Life Cycle Cost•
Volume III
Cost Element Cost Appendix il
Number Designation Billions of 77 $) _eference
1000 RDT&E Phase 121. 756
1100 SPS Hardware 6.270 Earth Baseline
1200 Construction System 20.741 Earth Baseline

1310 Earth Based 1. 338 Sect G.4
1311 Launch/Recovery .453
1312 Propellant Production • 885
1320 Lunar Based 5.388

1321 Power Station 2. 076 Note 1.1
1322 Lunar Base Habitat 3. 202 Note 1.2
1323 Mining Equipment • O50 Sect G. 5.1
}.a 1324 Beneficiatton Equipment .015 Note 1.3
oo
1326 Manufacturing Equipment • 037 Table G-41
1328 Propellant Depot .008 Note 1.4
1330 Space Based 52. 756

1331 Power Station 2.341 Note 2. 1
1332 Space HabitaLu 38.528
-1 LEO 7. 793 Note 2.2
-2 GEO 5.3!97 Note 2.3
-3 LLO • 199 Note 2.4
-4 SMF 25. 139 Note 2.5
1333 Space Manufacturing 7. 450 Table G-41
1334 Propellant Depots • 521 Table G-4
1335 Beneflciation Equipment • 0]9 Note 2.6
1336 Processing Facility 3.650 Note 2.7
1337 Liquifaetion Equipment • 247 Note 2. 8
(
ii!_....
Table 5- 5 . LRU Option B Life Cycle Cost (Continued).

Volume III
Cost Element Cost
Appendix H
Number Designation Billions of 77 ,) Reference
1340 Facility Activation 9. 293
1341 Transportation 7.3O5 Note 3.1
1342 Initial Depot Supply .002 Note 3.2
1343 Construction/M aintenance
Crew .288 Note 3.3
1344 Earth Based Facility
Operations .O68 Note 3.4
1345 Lunar Based Facility
Operatipns .118 Note 3.5
1346 Space Based Facility
Operations 1. 512 Note 3.6
O1
I
i-4 1400 Transportation
¢O 25.970
1430 POTV 1. 667 Note 4.1
1431 Development 1.191 !
1432 Initial Production .476

1440 COTV 9.342 Note 4. 2
1441 Development .637
1442 Initial Production 8.705
1450 SDV 11. 090 Note 4.3
1451 Development 6. 832
1460 P LTV .443 Section G. 3.11
1480 Mass Driver 1.500 Section G. 3.14
1482 Initial Production •350
1490 Mass Catcher I. 928 Note 4.4
Table 5- 5. LRU Option B Life Cycle Cost (Continued).
Volume III
Cost Element Cost Appendix H
Number Designation Billions of 77 $) Reference

1492 Initial Production 1. 250
2000 Production Phase 298.325

t
2100 Earth Based Fabri-
cation & Assembly i 229.462
i
2110 SPS System Hardware I 176.517

2111 Satellite ] 43. 137 Note 5.1
2112 Earth Rectenna [133.380 Note 5.2
212O Launch/Recovery Facility Ops .680 Note 5.3

2121 Facility Maintenance .68O
2130 Transportation (SDV/SS) 52. 265 Note 6.1

2131 Vehicle Replacement 8.342 Note 6.1
o 2132 Vehicle Maintenance 17.485 Note 6.2
2133 Spares Note 6.2
2134 Propellants/Gases 1.838 Note 6.3
2135 24.600 Note 6.4
Shuttle User Charge /
2200 Lunar Based Fabrication & Ass 2. 944
2210 Construction/Maint Crew .173 Note 7.1
2220 Facility/Equipment Operations 2.366

2221 Power Station 1.035 Note 8.1
2222 Lunar Based Habitat 1. 247 Note 8.2
2223 Mining Equipment .060 Section G. 5.1
2224 Bencflciation Equipment .006 Note 8.3
2226 Manufacturing Equipment .018 Note 8.4
2230 Transportation (PLTV/MD) .405 Note 9.1

2231 Vehicle Replacement Note 9.1
2232 Vehicle Maintenance .303 Note 9.2
(
_iiil
Table 5-5 . LRU Option B Life Cycle Cost (Continued).

Volume III
Cost Element Cost
Appendix H
Number Designation Billions of 77 ,) Reference
2233 Spares .101 Note 9.3
2234 Propellants/Gases • 001 Note 9.4
2300 Space Based Fabrication & Assy 65.919
2310 Construction/Maintenance
Crew 5.044 Note 10. 1
232O Facility/Equipment Operations 48. 152
2321 Power Station 2• 074 Note 11.1
2322 Space Habitats 20. 856 Note 11.2
2323 Space Manufacturing Facility 3.624 Note 11.3
2324 Propellant Depot .625 Note 11.4
2325 Boneflciation Equipment .010
O1
!
Note 11.5
2326 Processing Facility 2.912
b.a Note 11.6
2327 Liquifaction Equipment • 141 Note 11.7
2328 Construction System 17.910
2330 Note 11.8
Transportation (COTV/POTV/
MC) 12.72_ Note 12.1
2331 Vehicle Replacement • 316 Note 12. 1
2332 Veidcle Maintenance 9. 242 Note 12. 2
2333 Spares 3.076 Note'12. 2
2334 Propellants/Gases •089 Note 12.2
3000 Operations Phase 186.651 Earth Baseline
31 O0 Satellite 124. 629
3200 Earth Rectenna 62.022
100 Total Program Cost 606.732
NOTE: Referenced notes are contained in Appendix lI.

Table 5- 6. LRU Option C Life Cycle Cost
Volume III
Number Designation (Billions of 77 $) Reference
1000 RDT&E Phase 135.476

1310 Earth Based 1.748 Sect G. 4
1312 Propellant Production 1.084
1320 Lunar Based 19.525

1322 Lunar Base Habitat 6.756 Note 1.2
T 1323 Mining Equipment .050 Sect G. 5.1
bo
1324 Beneficiation Equipment .023 Note 1.3
1325 Processing Facility 4.201 Sect G. 5.3
1326 Manufacturing Equipment .292 Sect G. 5.5
1327 IJquefaetton Equipment • 558 Note 1.4
1328 Propellant Depot .028 Sect G. 1
1330 Space Based 41. 248

1332 Space Habitats 32.058
-1 LEO 7.793 Note 2.2
-2 GEO 23.003 Note 2.3
-3 LLO 1.262 Note 2.4
1333 Space Manufacturing 7.158
1334 Propellant Depots .709 Sect G. 1
( (:
Table 5- 6 • LRU Option C Life Cycle Cost {continued)
Volume III
Cost Element Cost
Appendix H
Number Designation (Billions of 77 _) Reference
1340 Facility Activation 13.390
1341 Transportation 11. 072 Note 3.1
1342 Initial Prop Depot Supply .009 Note 3.2
1343 Construction/Maintenance Crew • 288 Note 3.3
1344 Earth Based Facility Operations • 100 Note 3.4
1345 Lunar Based Facility Operations .789 Note 3.5
1346 Space Based Facility Operations 1.132 Note 3.6
1400 Transportation 32. 554
1430 POTV 1.661 Note 4.1
1432 Initial Production .47O
1440 COTV 16.318 Note 4.2
1441 Development • 691
V
tO 1450 SDV 13.706
¢O Note 4.3
1460 LTV Note 4.4
1461 Development • 721 .869
2000 Production Phase

338. 160
2110 SPS System Itardware 176. 517
2111 Satellite 43. 137 Note 5.1
2112 Earth Rectenna 133.380 Note 5.2
2120 Launch/Recovery Facility Ops o996
2121 Facility Maintenance .996 Note 5.3
Table 5-6 . LRU Option C Life Cycle Cost (continued)
Volume l[I
2130 Transportation (SDV/SSS) 76.917 Note 6.1

2131 Vehicle Replacement 11. 586 Note 6.1
2132 Vehicle Maintenance 30. 341 Note 6.2
2134 Propellants/Gases 3. 190 Note 6.3
2135 Shuttle User Charge 31 • 800 Note 6.4
2200 Lunar Based Fabrication & Assembly 18.4 20

2210 Construction/Maintenance Crew 1. 440 Note 7.1
2220 Facility/Equipment Operations 15. 834

O1
! 2223 Mining Equipment •060 Section G. 5.1
bO
2224 Beneflciation Equipment .013 Note 8.3
2226 Manufacturing .142 Note 8. 5
222_ I_) 2 Liquefaction .362 Note 8. 6
2228 Propellant Depot .033 Note 8. 7
2230 Transportation (LTV) 1. 146

2231 Vehicle Repl acemWent .318 Note 9.1
2233 Spares • 059 Note 9.2
2234 Propellants/Gases • 591 Note 9.2
2300 Space Based Fabrication & Assembly 65.310

2310 Construction/Maintenance Crew 4.194 Note 10.1
232O Facility/Equipment Operations 40. 543

2322 Space Habitats 17•178 Note 11.2
(
Table 5- 6.
LRU Option C Cycle Cost (continued)
Volume III
2324 Propellant Depot .851
2328 Note 11.4
Construction System 17.910 Note 11.5
2330 Transportation (COTV/POTV) 2O. 573 Note 12.1
2331 Vehicle Replacement .409 Note 12. 1
2332 Vehicle Maintenance 15. O40 Note 12. 2
2333 Spares 5.014 Note 12.2
2334 Propellants/Gases .110 Note 12. 2
3000 Operations 186.651 Earth Baseline
3100 Satellite 124.629
3200 Earth Rectenna 62.022
]an Total Program Cost 660.287
NOTE: Referenced notes are contained in Appendix H.

Table 5- 7. LRU Option D IJfe Cycle Cost.
Volume III
Number Desi_ation (Billions of 77 _} Reference
1000 RDT&E Phase 145.760
1300 Facilities & Equipment 83.332 Sect. G. 4

1310 Earth Based 1.374
1312 Propellant Production .885
1320 Lunar Based 24. 358

1322 Lunar Base Habitat 6. 756 Note 1.2
t_ 1323 Mining Equipment .050 Sect. G. 5.3
1324 Beneflciation Equipment .032 Note 1.3
1326 Manufacturing Equipment • 292 Table G-41
1327 Liquefaction Equipment .771 Note 1.5
1328 Propellant Depot • 069 Table G-4
1330 Space Based 41.019

1332 Space Habitats 32. 058
-1 LEO 7. 793 Note 2.2
-2 GEO 23. 003 Note 2.3
-3 LLO 1. 262 Note 2.4
1333 Space Manufacturing 7.158 Table G-41
1.334 :Propellant Depots •480 Table G-4
( (
Table 5- 7. LRU Option D Life Cycle Cost (Continued).
Volume III
Nn mbe r DesiBnatton (Billions of 77 $) Reference
1340 Facility Activation 16• 581
1341 Transportation 13.985 Note 3.1
1342 Initial Prop Depot Supply • 001 Note 3.2
1343 Construction/Maintenance Crew .288 Note 3.3
1344 Earth Based Facility Operations •073 Note 3.4
1345 Lunar Based Facility Operations 1.116 Note 3.5
1346 Space Based Facility Operations 1.118 Note 3.6
1400 Transportation 35.417
1430 POTV
1. 660 Note 4.1
1440 COTV 13. 145 , Table G-16
-.] 1442 Initial Production 12. 455
1450 SDV 14. 873 Note 4.2
1470 LDR 5.739 Note 4.3
1472 Initial Production •535
2000 Production Phase

314.665
2110 SPS System Itardware 176. 517
2111 Satellite 43.137 Note 5.1
2112 Earth Rectenna 133.380 Note 5.2
Table 5- 7 . LRU Option D Life Cycle Cos t (Continued)•
Volume III
2120 Launch/Recovery Facility Ops • 733 Note 5.3

2121 Facility Maintenance .733
2130 Transportation (SDV/SS) 61.167 Note 6.1

2131 Vehicle Replacement 7.771 Note 6.1
2132 Vehicle Maintenance 19. 542 Note 6.2
2134 Propellants/Gases 2. 054 Note 6.3
2135 SS User Charges 31.800 Note 6.4
2200 Lunar Based Fabriration & Assembly 25.469

ol
!
b_
oo 2221 Power Station 12.687 Note 8.1
2223 Mining Equipment .060 Sect. G.5.1
2224 Benefictation Equipment .022 Note 8.3
2226 Manufacturing .142 Note 8.5
2227 0 2 Liqutflcatton • 521 Note 8.6
2228 Propellant Depet • 083 Note 8.7
2230 Transportation (LDR) 1.704 Note 9.1

2231 Vehicle Replacement • 881. Note 9.1
2233 Spares .206 Note 9.2
2234 Propellants/Gases Note 9.2
( (:
Table 5- 7 . LRU Option D Life Cycle Cost (Continued).
Volume [II
Cost Element Cost
Appendix H
23O0 Space Based Fabrication & Assembly 50.779


2322 Space Habitats 17.178 Note 11.2
2324 Propellant Depots • 576 Note 11.4
2328 Construction System 17.910 Note 11.5
2330 Transportation (COTV/POTV) 6.317 Note 12. 1
2331 Vehicle Replacement • 424 Note 12. 1
2332 Vehicle Maintenance 4.417 Note 12. 2
2333 Spares 1. 473 Note 12.2
2334 Propellants/Gases
T .003 Note 12. 2
t_
¢o 3000 Operations Phase 186.651 Earth Baseline
3100 Satellite 124. 629
3200 Earth Rectenna 62. 022

100 Total Program Cost 647. 076
NOTE: Referenced notes are contained in Appendix tl.

Table 5-- 8 . Summary Program Cost Comoarison.
EARTII _U LRU LRU

ELEMENT BASE LINE CONCEPT B CONCEPT C CONCEPT D
RDT&E/STARTUP 70. 586 121. 756 135.476 145.760

SPS I "Iardwarc 6.270 6.270 6.270 6.270
Construction System 20.741 20.741 20.741 20.741
Facilities & Equipment 16. 666 68.775 75.911 83.332
Transportation 26.909 25.970 32.554 35.417
PRODUCTION 656.476 248.325 338.160 314.665

Earth-Based Fab/Assy 619.996 229°462 254. 430 238.417
Lunar-Based Fab/Assy 0 2.944 18.420 25.469
Space-Based Fab/Assy 36.480 65.919 65.310 50.779
OPERATIONS 186.651 186. 651 186. 651 186.651

!
TOTAL PROGRAM COST (B$) 913.713 606.732 660.287 647. 076

$/kW 3045.8 2022.5 2201.0 2157.0
NOTES:
1. Based on 1 SPS/Year for 30 years
2. Costs are in billions of 1977 dollars unless otherwise noted.
3. Cost per kilowatt is based on total installed capacity of the SPS fleet of 300GW.
( (:
5.3.2 NOMINAL ECONOMIC THRESHOLDS. In order to determine the points at
which the LRU concepts become more cost effective, breakeven curves were con-
structed. These are shown in Fibre 5-5 for the nominal cost case. A 90% learning
curve was used for the production phase in plotting the curves, thus the curves depict
a decreasing unit cost with increasing production. , Operations costs are unique in that
unit number 1 has 30 years of operation whereas unit number 30 has only 1 year.
Costs were allocated accordingly in the breakeven chart.
The intersection point of the Earth Baseline with each LRU concept curve represents
the threshold at which the use of lunar resources becomes more cost effective. The
thresholds indicated are quite low. Concept B is lowest at 3 satellites, followed by
Concept C at 4.6 and'Concept D at 5.0 production units. These thresholds agree
quite closely with preliminary estimates using the 1975 NASA Ames Summer Study
on Space Settlements data. That breakeven was presented in Fig-are 3-2 on page
3-13. It can be concluded, at least on a nominal basis, that all the LRU
concepts are more cost effective than the Earth Baaeline. It should be kept in mind,
however, that these are single point cost estimates, and a great deal of uncertainty
is attached to them. These uncertainties are great enough so that the threshold indi-
cated by the nominal costs may never be achieved. An uncertainty analysis and the
effects of uncertainty on the threshold is provided in Section 5.4. It should also be
kept in mind that in the present task the timing of funding flows and the time value of
money has not been taken into account. These also have an effect on the desirability
of a program and are discussed in Section 5.5.
5.3.3 COST RECONCILIATION. Satellite production cost for all LRU concepts is
sig-nificantly lower than that of the earth baseline. The purpose of this task is to evaluate
those differences and attempt to explain the reason for the lower LRU production costs.
Since all the LRU concepts are similar, Concept B was chosen as the example program
for comparison with the Earth Baseline.
5-31
1300
1200
1100
1000
BL Nora
900 @
Total Program 800 Concept C

Cost
(billions of 700 C Nom
1977 dollars) D Nom
600 B Nom
fib'/- 4" 6 __
500 Concept D
400
300
200
Coneept B
100
,_ 3.0
0
0 5 ]0 15 20 25 30
Quantity of Satellite Systems Fabricated
Figure 5-5. Nominal Economic Thresholds for LRU Concepts B, C and D.

I
( (
The approach to the analysis was to (1) identify all ground rules/assumptions which
could significantly affect the outcome (these are shown in Section 5_3.1), (2) provide
a barchart cost comparison for quick visual identification of cost differences, (3)
evaluate and explain areas of cost difference and (4) identify cost uncertainty areas or
areas that may have been omitted.
Development costs of the LRU concepts are substantially higher than the Earth Baseline.
This is due primarily to the higher investment (including development costs) in capital
equipment and facilities. Costs for development of the SPS system hardware and the
space based construction system are the same for all alternatives. Development costs
are compared in Figure 5.6 . Primary differences are in facilities. This is because
there are more facilities required for Concept B. In the LRU options the product must
be handled from the mine to the manufacture of the end item. In the Earth Baseline
most of the SPS hardware is purchased and investment in facilities is limited to about
$10 billion. Transportation development costs are approximately the same in both cases.
Figure 5-7 compares the production and operations costs. Since the SPS system
is essentially the same, regardless of production method, operations costs were as-
sumed equal for the Earth Baseline and the LRU concepts. Major differences in
Figure 5--7 lie in the production area where LRU Concept B is approximately $358
billion lower in total program cost. This production cost difference shows up primarily
in the cost of transportation and the satellite hardware costs. Including RDT&E costs,
the net difference is $307 billion. The major differences can, perhaps, be better
explained if they are classified under the major headings of: transportation and manu-
facturing. Table 5--9 provides this breakdown. Non-recurring development and
facilities costs were amortized and included in the table along with the recurring
production charges. The table was constructed by summing the elements from Tables 5-4
and 5-5 into the transportafion and manufacturing categories. These are defined as
follows:
5-33
Cost (Billions o11977 dollars)
RDT&E Cost Elemenls
10 20 30 40 5O
lilillllt II I, I I i = ill I I.I i I I I I
lt00 SPS hardware 0 ee_

1200 Construction system 0
1300 Facilities & equipment +52.l
Earth based
SPS hardware facilities
Propellant production
Launch/recovery
Lunar based
Space based
ol
I
co Facilily activation
d_
1400 Transportation - 0.9

HLLV
PLV i
POTV Legend:
--"- Earth baseline
COTV
SDV LRU Concept B
PLTV 2
Mass driver Z_
Mass catcher
Total A +51.2
Nole(_)i Net difference In billions of 1977 dollars. Positive amounts Indicate
Concepl B is higher in cost
Figure 5-6. Development Cost Comparison,
C (
II"!
!1'
PI=IucIi_I & Oi_fllli_.i Coil IElenloatli (_) I tO 30 40 50 50 130 140 210 220 250 270
--]
..... i.i i_l_LJ_Li_i_.LLi i I ! I , ! ! ! I , Coil
, i (ilUtioes
*I iJ:ol li77
i I |), , , i I _I l , , , , I i ,: I , s , ,
I
2100
Earlh based lab & as_iy I,: o.5
SP5 s'yslem hardware J
Earlll reClenna i _ t " " _

Launch & recovery iactllly operations /
TranspoHaltorl I F==========_ _":"":;_":: ............ "7";;';" :-::_"" ; : '" J
22OO
Lunar bused lab & assy I • 29
Conslructlon & malnl crow |
Facdily & equipment operalions /
Transpoztatlon /
23OO Spacobast_d lab & assy j - 9.4
Construction & maiolmimmo crew |
Facility & equipment operations | _ ., _ ..1
TranspoHallon / __ --.---
Looon_ Earth basetine
?, 3100
¢.o LFIU Concept B
ol 32OO Salolli,o operations / ) _ ;_[ ........... 7._:...;..._L
.............. _.............. _......_..-...._
Eaiih ,ecienna oporalions / ) _ .................. _--.,;;,;;7_..-...:;,...,;_:.,,. ........ _.,_=,,"_'_;,,_
.... i,.2-L|
.................................
Note (_) :Net dlltmonco ill bUlio_s el 1977 $. Positive amounts indicate Concept O is
tower in cost.
Figxlre ,5-7. Pr(tluction/Operations Cost Comparison.

Table 5-9. Major cost differences be_,veen the Earth Baseline and LRU ConceptB.
Earth Baseline [ LRU Concept B

Category NR R T NR R T Difference
Transportation 251.8 93.3 158.5
Earth Based 33.2 218.6 251.8 12. 4 53.0 65.4 186.4
Lunar Based 1.9 .4 2.3 -2.3
Space Based 12.9 12.7 25.6 -25.6
Manufacturing 148.4
Earth Based 418.0 182.8 235.2
Satellite 16.6 268. 0 284.6 6.3 43.1 49.4 235.2
Rectenna - 133.4 133.4 - 133.4 133.4 0
Lunar Based 5.4 2.6 8.0
Space Based 57.2 136.0

O_
Construction System 20. 7 36.5 57.2 20.7 17.9 38.6
Manufacturing System 62.1 35.3 97.4
Notes: 1. Costs are in billions of 1977 dollars

2. NR = Non-Recurring Development and Facility Cost Amortization
R = Recurring Production Costs
T = Total costs, excluding tlm Operations Phase which is the same for all Concept.
3. Comparison with LRU Concepts C and D is shown in Appendix I.
C (
Transportation- Includes amortization of: vehicle development, propellant production
facilities and Launch/Recovery facilities. Also includes cost of initial vehicle fleet,
vehicle replacement, vehicle maintenance, vehicle spares and propellants as well as
Launch/Recovery facility operations.
Manufacturing -- Includes amortization of earth or space based SPS hardware facilities
and space construction system as well as facility activation. Also includes the cost of
purchased parts and material, labor and facility/equipment overhead (maintenance,
spares, propellants).
In the transportation area, Concept B is lower in cost by $158.5 billion. A savings in
this area was expected due to the lower vehicle energy requirements in space and on
the moon. The lower transportation costs of Concept B are largely attributable to (I)
the high cost of replacing, maintaining, refurbishing and launching the Heavy Lift
Launch Vehicle for the Earth Baseline in which there are 11,730 flights and (2) the
high Earth Baseline replacement costs for a COTV which is not reusable.
Table 5-9 shows Concept B to be lower in manufacturing costs by $148.4 billion. Of
this amount $18.6 billion is due to the requirement of only one construction system
instead of two. Thus, the Concept B cost to manufacture the SPS hardware, up to the
point of on-orbit assembly is $129.8 billion. This was a surprising result since it
would seem reasonable to assume that space manufacturing would be just as costly
as earth manufacturing. The $129.8 billion difference actually results from a com-
bination of factors. These are discussed below in order of importance.
(I) Earth Manufacturing Chain Influences
The earth based manufacturing chain introduces additional, significant costs which
are not present in the LRU scenarios. These are (1) the cost of middlemen and
(2) the addition of a profit (and the presence of profit pyramiding) by the middlemen,
mining companies, processors and manufacturers. Flowcharts of the Earth Base-
line and LRU Concept Manufacturing Chains are shown in Figures 5-8 and 5-9.
The Earth Baseline chain represents the normal way of doing business today on
5-37
I MIGO,
EME.I i M'DO'ME,'I
I i
I
r-(_)--_
LEGEND:
I
I J I Cost o! lacillty
dhect labor
Cost el & equipment overhead
D i
MINING
COMPANIES
I
I
_'
' I
_' .- PROCESSOIIS
I" I l, (excluding
Transportation
Facility
amortization)
element
& equipment
overhead
amortization cost
Mine ore Process into Manu laclure Prolit
raw stock Ilnlshed paris
I !
_r I • I__(__
I I
ir-(D_--_
I I I
i
F-4D-J
I , --------'
¢.o 1 I I I I I II II II
oo
SPS _ SPS _, = End
CONSORTIUM CONSORTIUM _. SPS ,v Production
"I CONSORTIUM
'Assemble Iinished Assemble in LEO Final SPS

paris & transport & transporl to GEe Assembly in GEe
Io LEO
i MIGDLEMEH l i MIDDLEMEN i [MIDDLEMEN

I i i
I i o
' '
I
I
COMPANIES
MINING
' I
I _
i
I
I
•
!
Mine ore Process into Fabricate finished paris Purchase finished
raw stock paris and assemble
Figure 5-8. Earth Baseline Manu[acturing Chain.

C_
,-
-(])--J _-_@_
j r -(_)-
--'_ r--(])--"
I
,,,_:w:_-
l II ,,<K_--_
I
,
I
_:_w:_
I
I _ I
I I [ I , I I I I I
12" I
I I I ' i 'I'
"' i I.,
' =,s _ s_s ;, srs 1,

'_ I_ CONSORTIUM _ CONSORTIUM CONSORTIUM
I
CONSORTIUM]
Mine soil
Lunar soil Process into Manulaclure
Ol1 moon
beneliciation raw slock & components &
Iransport to subassemble
SMF al SMF
LEGEND:
I
COSl
Cost
el
ol
direct
lacilily
labor
& equipment ovurllead

I I
r_@_J
I
I I
i I I
¢.o
(excluding
Facilily
Transporlalion
amortization)
& equipment
element
amorUzalion
overhead
cost
1 SPS
CONSORTIUM
I ' END PRODUCTION
Profit [ Final a_ssembly
/ atSMF & Iransporl

Io GEe d reqlmed
I .,_.,EME.
I I MIO=E.EN
! i ",.O,EMEN
I
! i
i i
I-- --(_ J
I
I I .
I t i
I i iV I I,, I
I
MINING
EAtt)II-RASER
COMPANIES I ' i _,l.k_J,,,,,-.^s,.
I ¢ D- CONSORTIUM
Mine oee on Proces_ JlllO Fill)liCltlt} lilll:_hud i);.lll:_ Purchase finished

Earlh raw slock paris & transport
Io $MF
Figure 5-9. LRD SPS Manufacturing Chain.

earth. It consists of hundreds of independent firms, each adding value to the V
hardware and passlng it through the chain. The LRU concepts represent a dif-
ferent way of doing business than we normally see in the United States. It was
assumed that all LRU facilities are built, owned and operated by a single entity,
such as a group of firms or countries. This assumption eliminates the middle-
man cost and the addition of profit at each step of the chain. It was assumed that
this single entity was in the business of selling power for profit. Since the
entity operates its own facilities and isn't selling the hardware the facilities put
out, no profits are added and no middlemen are needed. The only profits and
middlemen costs in the LRU concept costs lie in the small amount of hardware
purchased on earth.
The primary elements in an earth-based manufacturing chain are the mining com-
panies, processors, manufacturers and the middlemen, who transfer the product
from one step to the next. A simplified Earth Baseline manufacturing chain is
shown in Figure 5-8. It consists of two major flows. The upper one shows
the path of the material which eventually ends up as a finished part or assembly
which the SPS consortium purchases.
The chain shows the basic cost elements that are added in as the product moves
toward the end of the chain. It shows that facility/equipment amortization is
indirectly included in the production cost. This tends to overstate the Earth Base-
line in relation to Concept B if production costs alone are considered. On a total
program cost level, however, the comparisons are valid since capital facilities/
equipment subject to amorization are included. The chain also demonstrates the
profit pyramiding effect and how the purchase price to the SPS consortium in-
cludes the profit of many firms. Assuming each firm adds 10% profit, a dollar's
worth of ore leaving the mine becomes $1.77 worth to the SPS consortium on the bot-
tom chain (44% profit in purchase price) and $1.46 on the top chain (32% profit
in purchase price) due to profit pyramiding. This assumes none of the elements
5-40
in the chain change the form; they just add their profit and sell to the next element.
|i i: :::
With profit added to the value added by processors and manufacturers, the pyramid
is even more magnified from the standpoint of total profit dollars added. The same
is true if there are more than one processor or manufacturer, which in effect,
lengthens the chain. Assuming two processors who each add $3 in value and two
manufacturers who each add $5 in value, a dollar's worth of ore leaving the mine
becomes $27.71 by the time it is purchased by the consortium on the bottom chain
($10.71 or 39% profit) and $9.79 on the top chain ($2.79 or 28_ profit). Depending
on the actual product flow, the percentage of profit will vary but it appears to be a
si_,ou_ificant portion of the purchase price for earth-based manufacturing.
The elements of the lunar based manufacturing chain are similar to those of an
earth based chain. The basic difference is that in the LRU concepts the major
part of the chain is developed, fabricated and owned by the S'PS consortium. The
top leg of the chain in Fi_ure 5-9 represents lunar/space manufacturing and the
bottom leg represents the 10.4_ of SPS material purchased on earth and the facili-
ties fabricated on earth and subsequently installed in space. Aside from the cost
of mining it, lunar soil was considered to be a free item.
In the lunar/space based portion of the chain, no profit is added to the production
cost. In the earth based portion, the profits of individual firms are added in.
The effects of profit pyramiding are negligible here since only a small portion of
the manufacturing is performed in this leg, whereas it is significant in the Earth
Baseline and contributes a great deal to the cost difference.
The above observations, and the observations on the preceding chart tell us that
we cannot compare production costs alone and obtain an equivalent comparison.
We must also include the facility/equipment and development costs as if they were
amortized. Thus, Total Program Cost is the proper means for camparing the
LRU Concepts with the Earth Baseline since it includes all relevant costs. Even
through total program costs provide a valid comparison, it might be argued that
5-41
the Earth Baseline is being unnecessarily penalized due to profit pyramiding and
other inefficiencies resulting from lack of a single ownership. The only way to
avoid this argument is to revise the Earth Baseline scenario so that it is an entirely
self contained program; similar to the LRU Concepts. Investment and operations
costs for mining, processing and manufacturing facilities for the entire Earth
Baseline Chain would have to be added and would replace the cost of purchased
parts.
(2) Manufacturing Facilities
A second factor which contributes to lower LRU Concept costs is in the facilities
area. The manufacturing facilities and equipment for the LRU options are specifi-
cally designed to turn out hardware for a single end product. This results in a
smoother, more efficient manufacturing flow than achievable by a group of earth
based firms who have diverse interests. Concept B facilities are also optimally
sized to produce the required output whereas existing earth facilities may (l) have
excess capacity that may result in higher overhead charges to buyers or (2) be too
labor intensive due to insufficient investment in plant/equipment. Finally, the
actual facilities which house the equipment are less costly than earth based facili-
ties. This is due to the use of expended external tanks and the fact that enclosures
are not required to the extent that they are on earth.
(3) Labor and Overhead
A highly automated manufacturing scenario and the use of robots in the manufactur-
ing process results in lower labor costs for concept B production. In the LRU
options only 1500-1600 personnel were required for the entire mining, processing,
manufacturing and assembly process. On earth these processes would require many
times that amount of workers for the same output. Not only are costs incurred for
the direct labor costs of these workers but they are also incurred in the indirect
labor of supporting groups and the overhead associated with them.
The final step of the reconciliation costs is the identification of areas which may have
been omitted or areas which could be addressed in more detail. Although no major
V
5--42
F=
omissions were found, several areas were identified which contribute to uncertain-
ty in the cost estimates, These are discussed below,
The first area is related to supply/demand shifts and their effect on prices. Two
| ....... factors which contribute to uncertainty in this area are: (1) the dwindling supply of
the earth's natural resources will increase future costs (2) the effects of the 5PS
program demand on facilities, material and labor prices were not considered.
These factors, if considered, would have a greater cost impact on the Earth Base-
line than the LRU concepts. Such assessments would certainly be appropriate in
future studies. In fact, the scarcity of earth's natural resources and increasing
costs due to the dwindling supply is. a major reason for lunar resource utilization.
A second major area of uncertainty is in the number of unknowns in the space/lunar
based manufacturing chain. Man's efficiency in and adaptability to space could
have major effects on crew sizes required. The amount of earth based support
required and the facilities required for those supporting functions has not really
been defined. Operation and maintenance costs of space based manufacturing
equipment are based on earth experience and could vary significantly from the
nominal estimates.
Cost uncertainties are also present because of the state of definition of the hardware
and operational characteristics for the optional programs. The scope of the current
study was much too limited to define the various LRU elements with a great deal of
detail; this is especially true in the area of enclosure facilities for the space/moon
manufacturing equipment, space based launch/recovery facilities and earth based
support facilities. It is also true for advanced state of the art systems where the
details have never really been worked out. The final source of uncertainty is in the
development cost of the advanced state bf the art elements. Problems in technology
and hardware development cannot be foreseen and costs could be higher than pre-
dicted.
5-43
5.4 COSTUNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS
The LRU and Earth Baseline Program Costs, shownin Section 5.1 and 5.3, Tables
5-4 through 5-7, were based on historical data, direct quotes, analyst judgment,
extensions of previous estimates anda given set of economic conditions. Costs
are also a function of the design parameters of individual systems. Weights,
thrusts, size, material types and state of the art all are major influencing factors
on cost. At the present stage of LRU analysis nothing is really defined enoughto
determine costs with a great deal of confidence. The economic conditions of supply
and demand are major influencing factors on cost andthese cannotbe predicted
with any certainty ten or twenty years from now. Suchpressures as shortages of
earth resources, inflation, labor costs and advancementof the state of the art all
affect the supply/demand equilibrium points as we perceive them now and shift
prices and availability of nmterial and personnel. Who could have foreseen our
2 digit inflation rates of today back in 1957, or who would haveever thought
there would be a gasoline shortage? These uncertainties make it both necessary %.$
anddesirable to perform a cost uncertainty analysis of the data previously derived.

This analysis will yield a band of cost estimates rather than an individual estimate.
It also helps dispel any notions that the costs in Section 5.3 represent a hard set of
numbers derived from a fully defined set of design and performance parameters.
The approach to estimating cost uncertainties is one of combining analyst judgment
with quantitative techniques. In this study, standard deviation will be used as a
measure of cost uncertainty. The objective is to define an interval around the earlier
cost estimates which represents a _-3 standard derivation and spread from the nominal
estimate. This interval theoretically includes 99.7% of the possible variation in
costs. The methodology used to accomplish this end is shown in the following
paragraphs.
5-44
,IE--_=
|
5.4.1 Methodology
For each cost element a percentage was estimated which represents the range
of possible costs on either side of the nominal estimate. These percentages are
F_
based on the confidence level criteria shown in Table 5-10. Confidence in the
cost estimates is a function of such things as data source, method of estimate,
degree of design and program definition, state of the art of a given technology,
previous production experience, adequacy of ground rules and the time allowed
for the estimate. The definitions in Table 5-10 are an attempt at quantifying
those variables which affect the validity of the cost estimate and provide for con-
sistency in the confidence level estimates. Each cost element was considered in
light of the criteria in Table 5-10 and given a confidence level rating as shown in
Table 5-11. An averageof the four categories yielded an overall rating for each
cost element.
To convert the confidence level ratings to a percentage confidence band the
following assumptions were made:
1) For Production and Operations costs a confidence level of 4 represents a 3
standard deviation dispersion about the nominal estimate of _:10% A
Confidence Level of 1, at the other extreme, represents a *100% dispersion.
2) For Development Costs a Confidence Level of 4 represents a 3-standard
deviation dispersion about the nominal estimate of _20_. A Confidence
Level of l, at the other extreme, represents a _200% dispersion.
The dispersions for Development cost elements are double those of the Pro-
duction or Operations phase elements. This is due to the greater number of
unknowns in a development program as opposed to the production or the operation
of a system. The limits are based on analyst judgment and are felt to represent
a realistic range of possible variations from the nominal.
Using the above assumptions, Confidence Level can be converted to a percentage
uncertainty range using the following linear equations:
5-45
Table 5-10. Confidence Level Criteria for Cost Uncertainty Estimates
CONFIDENCE LEVEl, I CONFIDENCE i,EVEI, 2 CONFIDENCE LPVEI, 3 CONFIDENCE LEVEL4

IX)W MEDIUM I.OW MEDIUM HIGH HIGH
..................................................... .....................
ESTIMATINO EsUmatlng Time and Information Access Estimating Time awJ Information Access Estimutl_[ Time and Information Access Estlmatiug Time and Information Access
CONDITIONS Completely Isud_luate amount of time A very shart due date or major problems A more accurate estimate c_mld have There were minor problems of access to
provkled to make the esUmate or there of access to available data tend to make been made if freer access or more tlme available data and there was generally
Is a complete lack of access to useful this esthnate highly uncertain. had been avxibble to rcsuareh known sufficient time to define and cost the
data sources. data ssurccs. Item.

Ground Rules aml AssUmlfllorm j
Ground Rules and Assumpttotm Very little guidance was provided relative t Ground Rules and AssumpUone Ground Rules and AssumpUons
No guidance was provided on ground rules to groond rules. Many of the assumpUona] Ground rules were generally adequate. Major ground rules were provided and
and all asuumpbmm made by the earl- Many of the assumptions were suthen- most of the assumpUona were asthentt-
made by. the estimator were ctmaldered
mater were arldtrary. quite arbitrary. Ucated but a sulmtantlal number are eared.
considered quesUonable.
NATUHE OF State-of-tim-Art State-of- the- Art State-of-the-Art Stale-el- the-Ar t
TIlE ITEM The Item Is embstanUxily beyond the The Item Is slightly beyond the state-of-- The Item is within the state-of-the.- The Item will Involve a minor modi-
current sink-of-the-art. Major tk_ the- art cud some development work will art but no commercial counterpart fication of commercial or stalldard
vclopmenI _)rk Is required. be r_quired. exists. aerospace Issue Items.

Production EXl_erlence Production Experience Production Experience Production Experience
No production of any kind has bean Experimental laboratory fabrication A I)rotetYpa of the item has been The Item has been produced In limited
started. of a similar Item Is in process. produced. quantity.
_D
! ITEM Design Definition Design DeflnlOon Design Deflnl Uon Deslgu Deflnl Uon
DE.Ill PTION No work done on design definition Deslp has been defined on a cursory Concept subsystem parameterc have Concept design has been defined In detail.
except for defining major parameters I basis. Subsystem parameters have been defined In detail through engineer- Subsystem parameters and eharaclerlsUcs
(e.g., total weight, power) on a total been eutimalod by engineering using Ing study but have cot boon substantia- have been IdenUfled and substantiated. The
basis. Subsystems cot defined. Cost similar studies. ted. Requlrementa driving the design design Is driven by firm requirements.
analyst assumptltms used for identifi- are not firm.
cation of subsystems and their weight
breakdown,
Operating program Characteristics Olmrating Program Characteristics Opcratln s prosram Characteristics Operating Pregram Characteristics
None of the OPC for using lhe Item The general outline of Ihe OPC under The general culllne of the OPC has The OPC have been substantially
have been fo_rmlatod. which the Item will be used has haen been formulaled, but many specific defined, hat are under review or
only tentatively defined and many speci- details are lacking. revision.
fic details arc lacking.
COST METIIODS Methods Methods Methods Methods
AND DATA The estimate Is almost a poor guess A highly arbitrary rul,e-of-thumb has A commonly used rule-of-thumb cost The basic methed used to derive the
and titile or no confidence can be bee. used. factor, hat with .o supporting baclmp, coat Is well documented, but no duPle-
placed In It. Da___ has been used. check or authentication hen been
Data The data used to make the estimate Data possible,
An almost total lack of current and highly maimer, very slmrse In quantity, The data used have been obtained from Data
reliable relevant data make the cost and characterized by major Inconsisten- official or standard suuroce. Notable The data used are generally relevant
estimate Omuldetely tmnertaln. cies. Inconsisteneles, lack of corroney, and from a reputable source. They
gaps In data reduce the confidence In arc Incomplete. preliminary, or not
the es_lm ate. completely current, hevmver.
(
Table 5-11. Cost E lement Confidence Levels and Uncertainty Range Estimates
CONFIDENCE I.EVELS
Estimating Nature of Item Cost Methods Overall Uncertainty Range

Element Conditions the Item Description & Data Rating
RDT&E
SPS Hardware
3. 25 65.0
Construction System
3.00 80. 0
Facilities & Equipment
Earth Based 3 4 2.25 65.0
Lunar Based 2 1.5 2.13 132.2
Space Based 2 1.6 2.13 132.2
Activation 2 1.5 2. 38 117.2
Transportation
HLLV 2 4 3.25 65.0
PLV 2 4 3.25 65.0
POTV 2 3 2.75 95.0
¢/i CO'IV 1
! 2 2.0 140. 0
hr. SDV 2 4 2.75 95. 0
-.4 LTV/PLTV 1 2 1.5 170. 0
LDR 1 2 1.5 170. 0
Mass Driver 1 2 1.25 185.0
Mass Catcher 1 2 1.25 185.0
Production
Earth Based Fab/Assy

SPS System llardware 4 3.25 32. 5
Launch/Recovery Fac. Ops. 4 3.25 32.5
Transportation
3.6 2. 63 51.1
Lunar Based Fab/Assy
Constr/Malnt. Crew
2. 75 47.5
FaelltW/Equlp. Ops
2. 25 62°5
Transportation
2.5 55. 0
Space Based Fab/Assy
Constr./Maint Crew
2. 75 47.5
Facility/Equip Ops 2. 25 62.5
Transportation 2.5 55. 0
Opcrations
Satellite
2.25 62.5
Earth Reetonna
2. 25
Development: U = 60X + 20
Production/Operations: U = 30X + 10
where: U = Uncertainty range (+%)
X = (4- Confidence Level l_ating)
The overall confidence level ratings were converted to percentage uncertainties
using the above equations and are shown in Table 5-11. This range represents
a _3 standard deviation variation from the nominal cost estimate for each
element and provides an estimate of the uncertainty in the cost estimate for that
particular elemenL
In Table 5-12 the percentages were multiplied by the nominal cost estimates
from Tables 5-5 , 5-6 and 5-7 to provide a ±3 standard deviation uncertainty
range for each element in terms of dollars. Standard deviations for each program
phase were determined by summing the variances ( a 2) of the individual elements
within the phase and taking the square root:
aphas e l 0"12 + a 22 ...... + G n2
Each program phase standard deviation was multiplied by 3 to provide a -_3cr cost
uncertainty range. These uncertainties are shown in the boxes in Table 5-t2.
Using these measures of dispersion it can be stated that we are 99.7% confident
that actual, future costs will fall within the following ranges:
_-3o- Cost Range (billions $)
Earth baseline 631-1197
Concept B 374-839
Concept C 427-893
Concept D 416-878
5-48
!i ]!T
'''_-
....
Table 5-12.
Program Phase Cost Uncertainty Ranges (billions of 1977 dollars).
Uncertainty Coneepl B Concept C Cmlccpt D Earth lqm _.llne
Co_1 Element
Range
(t _,)
Nominal
Cost * 30
I 02 Nominal
Cost * 30 02
Nominal Nomlna
2
Cost * 3o 0 2
Cost _3o 0
RDTkE
SPS Ilardware " • 65. 9 6. 270 1. 846 6. 274 4. 976 I. 846

6. 270 4.076 I. 846 6.2"/0 4.076 1. 846
ConstrucRon System 80.0 20. 741 30. fi91 20. 741 16.593 30. 591 20. 741 16. 593 30. 591
Facilities k Equipment 20. 741 16.593 30. 591
Earth Baaed . 65.0 1.338 .084 1o745 1.136 ' .143 1. 374 .893 .089 16.666 IO. 833 13.039
Lunar Based 132.2 5.338 5.533 19. 52_ o.25.812 74.029
24.358 32.201 115.214
Slmoe Based 132.2 52.756 540.454 41.24_ 54.530 330.389 41.019 54.227 326.731
Fa¢llily Activation 117.2 9.293 13.180 13.390 15.693 27.364 16.581 19.433 41.960
Translmr ration
I|LI.V 65. 0 -- • _ . -- --
PI,V 6ft. 0 ..... I'/.826 11.587 14.917
3.314 2.154 .516
POTV 9,5. O 1. 667 .279 1. 061 1. 579 .277 1. 660 1. 577 .276 2, 369 2. 251 .563
COTV 149.0 9.342 i 19.006 16.318 22.845 57.989 13. 145 18.403 37.630 3.400 4.760 2.518
SDV 95.0 11. 090 : 12.333 13.706 13.021 18.838 14.873 14.129 22.182
I.TV/PLTV 170.0 .443 .063 .869 1.477 242
lliR 170.0 ..... "
5.739 9.756 10.576
Mass Driver 185. 0 I. 500 .85_ -- _
Mass Catcher 185.0 1.929 1.414 • _
Nomhml Cost 121. 756 35. 476 i 45. 760 70.586

S_m_ of the Variances 625 639 541 "/08
58'/, 095 63,990
¢D RD P&F, Uncertainty Range (* 30 ) _,
Production
Earth Baaed Fab/Assy
SI_ System Ilardwarc 32.5 176.517 [ 365. 677 ?6. 51"/ 57. 368 365. 677 176. 517 57. 368 365. 677 401 . 391 ! 30. 452 ! 890. 860
Launch/RecoVery Facilities Oim 32.5 .680 OOfi _ 324 612 .733 .238 .006 4.2O0 1 • 365 .207
Tran_por ration 51. I 52. 265 '_ 79. 254 r6.917 39.305 171. 659
61 . 167 31. 256 108. 551 214.405 109.561 1333.734
I_amr Based Fab/Assy
Construcflon/biaintenance Crow 47.5 .173 .001 I. 440 .684 .052 1. 440 . 684 . 0fi2
Facility & Equipment Ops 62.5 2.36/; .243 15._ 9.896 10.882 22.325 13.953 21.6.32
Tranulmriatlon 55. 0 .405 .006 I. ] 46 .630 .044 I. 7O4 .937 . O98
Space I_sed Fab/Assy
Conslructlon/Malntcnanee Crew 47.5 5. (H4 638 4 I_Pl i 992 441 4.194 !.992 .441 R
Facility& Equipment Ops 62.5 48.152 _ 100. 634 10.54:i 2_. 339 71.343 40. 268 25.168 70. 378 36.480 22.800 57.760
! ransportatlos . 55. O 12. 723 5.441 _O. 573 14. 226 22. 486 6.317 3.474 1.341
Nominal Cost _98. 325 t8.160 314. 665 656. 476

,':_m of the Variances 551. _J9 642. 587 _qS. 176 3282. 561
Production Ilncortalsty Range (_ 30 } _
_pvraUons
,_telllle 62.5 24.029 7 674.147 ,'4.629 77 893 674 147 124.629 77.893 674.147 124.629 77.893 074.147
Earth I_oetenna 62. 5 62. 022 3 166. 959 ;2. 022 38. 754 166. 959 62.022 38.764 166.959 62. 022 38. 71Pi 166. 959
Nominal Cost 86, 651 m. 651
186.651 186.691
_trn of the Variano_a _ll • "0"
I i, 851.106 841. 106 841.106
Operations tlncertainty Range (] 30 ) _ 8 00
The question is now whether or not we can ascertain the presence of an economdc
k.S
threshold with such broad cost ranges. This question is addressed in the following
section.
5.4.2 ECONON[IC THRESHOLDS. Figures 5-10 through 5-12 are plots of the cost
ranges from Table 5-12. They are plotted in a similar fashion to the nominal
breakeven curve shown in Figure 5-5 . A 90% learning curve was assumed. The
cost range at zero production units represents the range of probable development
costs. The total dispersion for production and operations was equally allocated
among production units, which results in a confidence band that gradually grows
wider as production is increased.
In order to determine the presence of an economic threshold within the 30-unit
production phase, the maximum limit of the LRU concept range must cross the
minimum limit of the Earth Baseline range. This does not occur in any of the
three cases.
The crossover could occur at any point in the overlap area of the two ranges, or
@
at some greater number of production quantity. Thus, for confidence intervals
which include 99.7% of possible outcomes, it cannot be determined which concept
is more cost effective.
The above analysis indicated that, for a 99.74% (3o-) certainty level, no firm
conclusion can be reached regarding the crossover point. It might be interesting
to take the analysis one step fuz/her and determine the levels of certainty at which
a definite threshold can be determined. This can be accomplished by narrowing down
the 3cr bands shown in Figure 5-10 through 5-12 in small increments and determining
the crossover points for each iteration. This process is shown in Figure 5-33. Step
(a) shows the condition found with a :_3o-uncertainty range; that is, no crossover occurs.
5-5O
1300
Earth Baseline
1200
,_ BL Max
1100 LRU Concept B
1000
900
Total
Program BMax
800
Cost
(billions of 700
1977 dollars)
BL Min
600
O!
500
400
B Min
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 "30
Figure 5-10. LRU Concept B Threshold With • 30' Uncertainty Ranges.

1300
Earth Baseline
1200 BL Max
1100 LRU Concept C
1000
900
Total Program CMax
Cost
8OO
(billions of
1977 dollars) 7O0
600 BL Min
71 500
t_
C Min
400
300
2OO
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 3O
Figure 5-11. LRU Concept C Threshold With • 3_ Uncertainty Ranges.
C,I :
(
_!!!!:!¸!-!77!¸:i:
ii%!I
i!ii_i
I
CI!
1300
Earth Baseline
1200 BL Max
1100 LRU Concept D
1000
Total Program 900

Cost
(billions of 8OO
1977 dollars)
70O
600 BL Min
O1
¢.O
5OO
400 D Min
300
200
1 O0
0
0 5 10 15 2O 25 3O
Figure 5-12. LRU Concept D Threshold With :_3¢r Uncertainty Ranges.

Steps Co), (c) and (d) show successive iterations of narrowing the range from a
±2(rrange to a-_0(rrm3ge. It should be noted again here that the relevant crossover k.2
point is the point where the high side of the LRU concept range becomes less than
the low side of the Earth Baseline range. This point is identifiedwith a bold dot
in Figure 5-13.
As the uncertainty range is narrowed, maximum crossover points can be detected;
first at very high production numbers, then at lower and lower quantities as the
uncertainty band becomes smaller. Due to the overlap of the earth baseline and
LRU option uncertainty bands, the crossover points are of a cumulative nature;
that is, they represent the number of units at or below which the LRU options
become cost effective. The initialuncertainty bands determined in Table 5-12
represent ranges of costs within which 99.7% of the actual costs would fall. As
these bands are narrowed, it becomes less and less probable that actual, furore
costs would fall within their smaller ranges. The limit is reached in Step (d) of
Figure 5-13 where the ranges have become a point estimates of cost. These V
estimates represent the lowest probability of attainment since it is not likely the
actual program costs will be exactly as predicted. Although the narrower certainty
bands allow us to ascertain the presence of a cost effectiveness threshold we are
less certain that actual costs will be contained within these intervals.
The curves in Figure 5-14 were constructed using the process depicted in Figure
5-13. They were constructed for uncertainty bands ranging from +3(7 to • 0a .
They show the crossover points detected for the various uncertainty ranges. The
5-54
*2G Ranges
Crossover J
Quantity Quantity
(a)
• OG Ranges (Nominal)
$ $
_-Crossover S_- Crossover
Quantity Quantity
(c) (d)
Figure 5--13. Iterative process required to determine crossover as a

function of cost uncertainty ranges.
uncertainty bands are expressed in terms of the probability that actual costs _'ill
fall within the corresponding standard deviation ranges. The ordinate could have
also been expressed in terms of standard deviations, where 99.7% represents *3 a ;
95.4%, ±2 a ; 68.3%, *la , and so on. The maximum crossover points indicate
the number of production units at or below which the LRU options become more cost
effective.
5-55
• 1.79a
Desired Uncertainty (92.66% probability

Rmlge of Cost interval (88.12% probability interval)
• 1.47 a
Estimate
01
(85.84% probabiliW interval)
!
0"1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Number of Production Units

(at or below which crossover occurs)
Figure 5-14. Identification of Maximum Crossover Points for Various Cost Uncertainty Ranges.
C ( C
E
Figure 5-14 is useful in determining the probability or uncertainty range required
to achieve a crossover at 30 units or less. From the figure, the ranges for each
option were determined and are shown below, together with their corresponding
width in standard deviations. o
Probability Std Deviation Probability of

Interval Range C ros sover
Concept B 92. -_1.790" 92.8c/c
Concept C 85.8% ±i. 470" 86.3%
Concept D 88.1% ±1.56o- 88.5%
Thus, in the case of Concept B, if we are willing to accept a cost uncertai, ty range
which encompasses 92.7% of all possible outcomes, then we can state that a
threshold will be reached at or before 3_ production units. Similar statements can
be made for LRU Concepts C and D for 85.8_ and 88.1_ probabilities.
One of the values of this exercise is that it allows us to make a determination of
the probability of crossover at or before 30 units for each concept. The probability
of this crossover is the joint probability of the Earth Baseline being at or above the
lower end of its range and the LRU concepts being at or lower than the upper end of
their ranges. The probabilities are also shown in the above table.
5-57
5.4.3 THRESHOLDSENSITIVITY TO MANUFACTURINGCOSTS. As was mentioned
%2
previously, the fact that nominal manufacturing costs in space were much lower than
on earth is a surprising result. Transportation costs were expected to be lower but
manufacturing costs were expected to be more or less equal. The cost reconciliation
section identified several reasons for this cost difference. The primary one being
due to ownership by a single entity versus ownership by many independent firms.
This resulted in additional middlemen costs and profit pyramiding which are not
present in the LRU options. Although ownership by a single entity and the vertically
integrated manufacturing chain appear to be reasonable assumptions for the space-
based scenarios, it might be argued that this difference in the manufacturing chain
unfairly penalizes the Earth Baseline.
If we assume for a moment that the LRU scenarios include independent firms and
middlemen, the manufacturing costs would increase. Not only because of profits and
additional overhead, but also because of lost efficiencies in the manufacturing process.
To test the sensitivity of the economic crossover point to such a scenario it will be
assumed that the manufacturing costs of the LRU concepts are the same as those in
the Earth Baseline. From Section 5.3.3 the total difference in manufacturing between
Concept B and the Earth Baseline is $129.8 billion. Similar analyses for Concepts C and
D yielded $117 billion and $102.8 billion, respectively. These data are shown in Appendix
I. If these amounts are added to the LRU concept manufacturing costs we can determine
the effects on the crossover point and uncertainty bands.
The cost differences were allocated to the lunar and space-based manufacturing
costs using ratios of element costs to totals. Costs were further allocated
to RDT&E and Production by ratios and the following results were obtained.
Amount to be Added to LRU

Concept B Cost Element Manufacturing Cost (billions$)
RDT&E B C D
Lunar based (1320) 6.65 19.30 18.94
Space based (1330) 76.48 54.04 44.73
5-58
Amount to be Added to LRU
Concept B Cost Element Manufacturing Cost (billions $)
Production B C D
Lunar based fab/assy
C onstruction/maintenance .22 I. 43 i. 12
crew (2210)
Facility equipment ops (2220) 2.98 15.70 17.36
Space based fab/assy
C onstruction/Maintenance 4.12 2.49 1.95

crew (2310)
Facility equipment ops (2320) 39.35 24.04 18.80
TOTAL $129.8 $117.0 $102.8
Adding the above values to the LRU concept values in Table 5-12, the following new
values were calculated:
Concept Element Nominal _3_ 3ff Range
B RDT&E 204. 886 173.660 31.226 - 378.546
B Production 344.995 84.110 260.885 - 429.105
C RDT&E 208.816 140.494 68.322 - 349.310
C Production 381.820 84.074 297.746 - 465.894
D RDT&E 209. 430 132.035 77.395 - 341.465
D Production 353. 795 79.149 274.646 - 432.944
Economic thresholds can now be determined in a similar manner as the previous
analyses. The results are shown in Figures 5- 15 , 5- 16 , and 5- 17. The
nominal crossovers are shown in Figure 5-15. Even with the added amounts,
the LRU concepts are still more cost effective than the Earth Baseline. The added
costs have a significant effect on the 3_ bandwidth of LRU concepts. The addition of
the RDT&E more than doubled the nominal costs for space and lunar facilities and
equipment. This, in turn, increased the dispersions for development and resulted
in a much wider 3c_ confidence band. The bands are plotted in Figure 5-16 for
Concept B. Similar results would be obtained for Concepts C and D. The conclusions
which can be reached are the same as before. The bandwidths are too wide to deter-
mine if an economic threshold will be reached within the 30-unit production run.
5--59
1300
1200
1100
1000
900 BL
/
Total Program 80O
Cost
(Billions of 1977 700
dollars) Concept C /__-_..__
0
600
1_.4I .___--
500 Concoct
D_ __
12.0 ._;._:
__ *....
400
11.1
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 5-15, Nominal Economic Thresholds if Earth Baseline and

LRU Concept Manufacturing Costs are Equal.
( ( (
]i iiiii_
¸ !_!_!!_l--_i!i!!j1!!l
i!i!_H!!!!:!!!:!::z
:i!!!l_!!!i_l!!i:_!ii!
Fi;!!:i_l:!!!!_h
:!:!:_:
C!il i i ii! ¸:¸II_¸ i_i!i!!

¸
1300
• Manufacturing costs of earth baseline and LRU Concept B are assumed
to be the same
1200 Earth
• No discernible crossover exists
BL Max
• Similar results for Concepts C & D
1100
B Max
1000
900
Q '
800
Total ProgTam
Cost 700
¢.n
i
(billions of 600 Earth
BL Mill
1977 dollars)
500
400
B Min
300 11
'O0 0 5 10
I 15 20 25 30
Fi_,'dre 5-16 . LRU Concept B economic threshold with + 30' uncertainty ranges.
i3.0
• /)f
Concept D /_/
J:2.0
Concept D: :_. 84G __ ;;eptC

Desired (59.90% probability , Cone
Uncertainty Range
5" of Cost Estimate
t_
il.0
Concept B.i 85q \//" _ , -_,
• " " . --- / Uoncept _:
!67.46_,probabihty//_ / - _ i. 690 (50.980/0 probability
t interval,
J/ .i// //i
,
II ilnterval) '
L ./,/ ,
:tO !r . ;/)X r _ ; . ; . ; . ; _ _ .....
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Number of Production Units
(at or below which crossover occurs)
Figure .5-17. Crossover Points if Earth Baseline nnd LRU Concepts

have Equal Manufacturing Costs.
( ( (
Figure 5- 17 is a plot similar to the one done previously in Figure 5- 14. It
shows the maximum discernible crossover point as a function of the uncertainty
range. The required confidence interval to achieve crossover is significantly
lower than was previously noted'. The narrower bands only include about 6(_,0 of
possible cost outcomes for each option.
The probability of achieving a crossover at or before 30 units for Concept B is
the joint probability of the Earth Baseline being greater than X E - . 85cr E and
LRU Concept B being less than X B +, 85 B" This is computed below:
X X
B E
! [
cost / i /k ! \ co t
•85 O"B _.85
P1 = Probability X B _<"_B + "85 o"B = "8023
P2 = Probability
X_ >__ -.85_ E="8023
Joint Probability = Pl U P2
= (. 8023) (, 8023)
= ,6437 or 64.37q.o
Thus, it can be stated that for equivalent Earth Baseline and LRU Concept B manu-
facturing costs, there is a 64.37% probability that a crossover will occur within the
30-unit production run. In a similar fashion, probabilities for Concept C and D were
computed to be 56.99% and 63.92%, respectively.
5, 4.4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE UNCERTAINTY .aND SEiN_SITIVITY ANALYSES.
Probably the major implication of the analyses is that it can be stated with a relatively
high level of certainty that an economic threshold will be reached within the 30-unit
production run. The sensitivity analysis shows that even if the manufacturing costs of
5-63
the LRU concepts are grossly understated, they still appear to be more cost
effective than the Earth Baseline on a nominal cost basis.
The uncertainty analysis provided us with a measure of confidence for the cost
estimates. Using confidence b__nds, we are in effect recognizing that it is
improbable that the nominal point cost estimate will occur. It is recognized that
costs will actually fall within a given range about the nominal. These ranges
were defined using standard deviation as a measure of dispersion. The effect
of cost uncertainties on the economic threshold is significant. For confidence
bands which include 99.7% of possible outcomes, no conclusions can be reached
regarding cost effectiveness. The bands are too wide to ascertain a crossover.
It was found, however, that with narrower confidence intervals (85-93% probability
intervals) that crossovers would occur within the production run of 30 Solar Power
Satellites.
The sensitivity analysis, in effect, assumed that the LRU concept manufacturing
chains were not vertically integrated and that manufacturing costs were equal to
those of the Earth Baseline. This assumption increases LRU manufacturing costs
considerably and the corresponding uncertainties.
The probabilities of reaching a crossover

B
at or before 30 units for the two cases
above are:
Different Manufacturing Same Manufacturing

Costs Costs
Concept B 92.79_0 64.37%
Concept C 86.34% 56.99%
Concept D 88.47% 63.92_0
The probability that the LRU concepts would be more cost effective is reduced con-
siderably if manufacturing costs are assumed the same. Even though reduced, the
chances of being more cost effective than the Earth Baseline are still fairly high.
These probabilities apply for a production limit of 30 satellites. For higher
production numbers the probabilities of crossover increase.
5-64
5.4.5 KEY DRIVER PARAMETERS
The LRU and Earth Baseline system elements which have the greatest influence on
r,_,- ¸ _
overall program development costs and production costs are known as key driver
_H___
parameters. These can be identified from the information generated for the cost un-
certainty analysis. Table 5-12 contains nominal and ± 30 costs for each major
system element or group of elements in LRU Concepts B, C and D and the EarthBase-
line. Summation of the nominal cost and the + 30 cost yields the maximum cost
contribution of each element. The elements with the largest sums have the greatest
potential influence on total program cost and are key cost drivers.
Table 5-13 ranks system elements in order of their potential cost contribution. Ranking
1 corresponds to the highest potential cost element and is followed in decending order
by elements which contribute lesser amounts.
For all LRU concepts, the RDT&E key driver parameter is space based facilities and
equipment (by a ma.ximum potential cost factor of approximately 2). This is followed by
the SPS construction system for LRU Concept B, and lunar based facilities and equip-
ment for Concepts C and D. Cargo Orbital Transfer Vehicle (COTV) and Shuttle Derived
Vehicle (SDV) costs are greater contributors than innovative transportation system
elements. Elements such as the mass driver/mass catcher and lunar derived rocket
(LDR) have high cost uncertainties but relatively low nominal development costs, so
their overall influence on total RDT&E uncertainty range is small. It ts interesting to
note that the influence of SPS hardware development costs on total RDT&E is also small
compared to space facilities and major transportation vehicles.
RDT&E key driver parameters for the Earth Baseline are earth based facilities and equip-
ment, the SPS space construction system, and Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLLV), follow-
ed by satellite hardware and the remaining transportation vehicles.
The first three key driver parameters for production are the same for the Earth Base-
line and all three LRU concepts. Earth based production of satellite hardware plus its
r
delivery into orbit contribute potential costs an order of magnitude greater than other
production elements.
5-65
To reduce cost uncertainties associated with lunar resources utilization, efforts
should be focused on production ranking 1 (earth produced satellite hardware},
RDT&E ranking 1 (space facilities and equipmentdevelopment production ranking 2
(earth based transportation}, RDT&E ranking 2, production 3, RDT&E 3, production
4, followed by RDT&E rankings 4, 5 and 6 in that order.
Table 5-13. Ranking of Cost Contributors.
Nom + 3_
Ranking LRU Concept B LRU Concept C LRU Concept D Earth Baseline
RDT&E i ,,,
1 Space facilities Space facilities Space facilities Earth facilities

2 "Construction sys Lunar facilities Lunar facilities Construction sys
3 COTV COTV Construction sys HLLV
4 SDV Construction sys Facility activation SPS hardware
5 Facility activation Facility activation COTV COTV
6 Lunar facilities SDV SDV PLV
7 SPS hardware SPS hardware LDR POTV
8 Mass driver & Earlh facilities SPS hardware
mass catcher
Production
1 EB SPS hdwre EB SPS hdwre EB SPS hdwre EB SPS hdwre
2 EB transportation EB transportation EB transportation EB transportation
3 SB facilities SB facililies SB facilities SB facilities
4 SB transportation SB transporation LB facilities EB launch ops
5 SB construction LB facilities SB transportation
6 LB facilities SB construction SB construction
7 EB launch ops LB construction LB transportation
8 LB transportallon LB transportallon LB construction
EB - Earth based LB - Lunar based SB - Space based
5-66
J
V
5.5 FUNDING SPREAD PROFILES/PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
The determination of total program cost is only the first step in the determination of
the economic viabilityof a given program. The timing of the required funding to
support that program is also an important consideration in program selection. If
90 percent of the funds of a I0 billiondollar program were required within two
months of the start of that program, the selection of that particular program may be
questionable. At the other extreme, if only I0 percent of the funds were required
over the next 30 years and the remaining 90 percent were required for the following
20 year period the program would probably be more desirable. The previous t%vo
statements point out the importance of the timing of the cash outflows in program
selection. Eow early year funding tends to be more desirable than high early year
funding. Constant annual funding may also be a better alternative than high early
year funding. The primary reason for these criteria is probably that funding is
limited in a given year by the available NASA budget.
A major underlying facet of the timing of cash flows, which can have a significant
effect on the selection of an alterlmtive program, is the time value of money. In
the private sector a discount analysis is one of the primary considerations in a capital
budgeting analysis. In this analysis, future cash inflows and outflows are estimated
over the life of each investment project. Alternative projects can then be evaluated
by selecting the one with the highest (1) internal rate of return or (2) net present
value, given a required rate of return on investment. The basis of the discount
analysis is that money has a time value. Given a limited amount of investment funds,
the firm seeks projects which maximize this return on investment.
It is becoming more common in the government sector to perform discount analyses
in project selection. Like the private sector, the government is also faced with budget
ceilings. Once the decision has been made that a project or service is a socially
S-67
desirable expenditure, the government must select only the most cost effective kJ
alternatives in reaching its goals. In the case of the government sector, there
are generally no revenues resulting from the investment so the return is measured
by a negative net present value, or the present value of total pro_ram cost. "The"
lower the present value of a project alternative, the more desirable that alternative is.
Implicit in the government sector discount analysis is the understanding that since
there are no investment revenues, costs are covered through taxation of the private
sector. Thus, it must be determined what resources society is willing to sacrifice
in order to obtain the added government service. That sacrifice is generally expressed
as the required social rate of return, or that rate of return which could be achieved by
the private sector if it provided the same service. If government cannot achieve this
return, society as a whole would be better off if the service were provided by the
private sector. This reduces taxes and the private sector uses those funds for viable
investments. Thus the appropriate discount rate to be used in NASA type programs
is the returnwhich could be earned by private aerospace firms through private invest-
meat. This return is generally accepted as 10 percent, although it can vary somewhat.
A present value analysis then, assures the efficient allocation of resources, whether
in the private sector or the government sector. It is a useful tool for use in the
selection of alternative investments because it considers not only the magnitude of the
program costs but also the timing of expenditures and the time value of money. It
also provides insight intoothe desirability of alternative funding spread options by
providing a means to numerically quantify various funding curve shapes. In effect,
the present value analysis removes the time variable, so projects are compared on an
equivalent basis.
The following sections provide more detailed descriptions of how funding spreads
and present values were derived. The results of the analyses are also provided.
5-68
5.5.1 Funding Profiles
The importance of the funding profile in program or concept selection was stressed
in the preceding section. A funding spread analysis is often an iterative process
where it is used to establish a program schedule that will comply with funding
limitations. Expenditure profiles for a planned program can be revised by shifting
the schedule of planned events until the program plan satisfies funding, as well as
time constraints. The resulting funding profiles can readily be used for a discount
analysis if that step is required. The analysis of funding requirements then, is an
important tool, both in the formation and selection of a space system program.
There are three types of funding spread profiles which will cover the planned expendi-
ture patterns in the LRU Study Programs. These are the Beta, rectangular and
triangular distributions, shown in Figure 5--18. The Beta distribution allows for
variations in expenditures over the life of the project, the rectangular distribution
provides a constant annual cost for the project and the triangular distribution
allows for constant annual increasing costs. The distributions are merely mathe-
matical formulations used to simulate the expected expenditure profiles. The
selection of the distribution to use is dependent upon the cost element in question.
Since development activities generally require varying levels of funding, the Beta
distribution is more appropriate for RDT&E. Funding levels for production could
be represented by either distribution. If the production rate is constant, funding
levels would also be constant, and a rectangular distribution could be used. Varying
production rates would dictate the use of a Beta distribution. In the operations phase
the triangular distribution is more appropriate since annual operating costs increase
at a fairly constant rate, due to the addition of a new satellite each year.
Funding spreads may be made at any selected cost work breakdown level and summed
upward to obtain totals for the RDT&E, Production and Operations phases as well as
for Total Program Cost. Due to the many possible spreads which may be required
5-69
; X.j
$/YR Triangular
Dis tribution
Curve
TIME
$/YR ! ! Recta ngula r

i I Dis tribution
Curve
TIME
_"'x Beta Distribution

$/YR
%-. _ Curves
TIME
Figure 5-18. Annual Cost Distribution Cum, es
5-70
for each program the funding spread equations were adaptedfor use on the Hewlett
Packard 9810 Computer/Plotter. The computer not only makes quick, accurate
computations, it also keeps track of the time phasing of the various funding spreads
much easier than if it were done by hand and provides a plotting capability.
The schedules shown in Figures 5--19 and 5-20 were constructed using Figures
6-2 and 6-3 as a guide. The schedules show the time spans of various major cost
activities and indicate the WBS level where individual funding spreads were made.
Due to the lack of detailed definition at this point in time, the schedules for the three
L.RU options were assumed to be the same. The type of funding spread assumed for
each cost element is also provided in the figures. °
Using the schedule time spans and the element costs, funding spreads were determined
on an annual basis for each alternative program. These results are shown in Figures
5-21, 5--22, 5-23 and 5-24. An attempt was made to provide lower early year funding
with a gradual buildup in requirements as each program progresses. An attempt was
also made to provide fairly constant annual requirements in the steady state pro-
duction condition, although this effort wasn't completely successful. Each curve
shown represents one of the major cost elements shown in Figures 5-19 and 5-20 and
are labeled accordingly.
The expenditure profiles are indicative of the relative costs of the alternatives. Annual
costs are highest for the EarthBaseHne (Reference Figure 5-20) peaking at $25.58
billion in the year 2004. Annual costs for the LRU options are in the order of $15 billion
per year beginning in about 1990. Based or_ the lower annual funding requirements of the
LRU concepts; the LRU concepts appear to be much better alternatives than the Earth
Baseline. The annual costs of any one of the programs, in light of the present NASA
budget, appear excessive and shed doubts on the capability of a single enterprise to
5-71
YEAR
Cost Element
2000 2010 2020 2030
I1 I I I I I I r-I i I i I i i i i i- I I I I I I i J I-i i i i i ; i i i _
p
RDT&E PHASE I
!
(1) SPS ltardware 03) !
i
i
I
(2) Construction System (n) 1

i
(3) Facilities & Equip O3) I
(4) Transportation (B) III

t
PRODU CTION PHASE
I
Earth Based - I
(5) Satellite Hardware (B)

(6) Earth Rectenna Hardware (B)
(7) Launch Fac Ops/Transportation (R)
to
(8) Space Based (R)
I I I
( 9) OPERATIONS PItASE (T)
1 j
i
Legend:
.I
(B) - Beta Distribution Annual Spread
(R)- Rectangular Distribution Annual Spread
(T)- Triangular Distribution Annual Spread , I
I
Figure 5-19. Earth Baseline Funding Spread Schedule.
C i
(
ili_il
F,
i: :1
Cost Element YEAR

1981 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030
I--I I I I III I I I-_-+- i I 1 I I I I I_lll i I II I i I-I III I i I I I I I I I I I i I I I
RDT&E PIIASE
(1) SPS ttardware 03)

(2) Construction System (B)
Facilities & Equipment-
(3) Earth Based 03)
(4) Lunar Based 03) II '1 I I I I
(5) Space Based (B) III I ,
(6) Activation (R)
(7) Transportation (B) I I I
PRODUCTION PIIASE
Earth Based -
---1 >
¢.O
(8) Satellite (B) 1
(9) Earth Rectenna 03)
(10) Launch Fac. Ops/Transp. (R)
(11) Lunar Based (R)
(12) Space Based (R) _m
(13) OPERATIONS PHASE (T)

I
"1"
Legend: I
(13)- Beta Distribution Annual Spread 1

]
(R)- Rectangular Distribution Annual Spread
(T) - Triangular Distribution Annual Spread
1
i
I
Figure 5-20 Funding Schedule - Typical for LRU Concepts B, C & D.

Curve No. Cost Element Curve No. Cost Element
(1) SPS Itardware Development (6) Earth Rectenna tlardware Production

4O
(2) Construction System (7) Launch Facility Ops/Transportation •
(3) Facilities & E(,uipment (8) Space Based Production
(4) Transportation (9) Operations
35 (5) Satellite Hard,rare Production
30
L'--
(9)
O_ 25
O
g)
O
!
,r-4 20 (7)
,,-4
d_ (6)
O
O 15
(5)
10
O)
0
1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure 5-21. Estimated Annual Expenditures- Em'th Baseline.
C C C
!! ii!ii!i!r!!_Vi}C!!iii_!3i!i_ii!!l!!ii!717ii!iilli!!iiilllii!ii:
¸

(1) SPS Hardware Development (8) Earth Based Satellite Hardware Production
4O (2) Cor, struction System (9) Earth Rectenna Production
(3) Earth Based Facilities & Equipment (10) Launch Facility Ops/Transportation
(4) Lunar Based Facilities & Equipment (11) Lunar Based Production
(5) Space Based Facilities & Equipment (12) Space Based Production
35
(6) Activation (13) Operation s
(7) Transportation
30
ot
_t-.- 25
0 '
Ol rJl
!
N 20
O1
or-t
e
4-)
ul
r_ 15
10
1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 20,30
Figure 5-22. Estimated Annual I,Lxpenditures- LRU Concept B.

Curve No. Cost Element Culwe No. Cost Element
(1) SPS [Iardware Development (8) Earth Based Satellite Hardware Production
4O Earth Rectenna Production
(2) Construction System (9)
(3) Earth Based Facilities & E_dpment (10) Launch Facility Ops/Transportation
3_ (5) Space Based Facilities & Equipment (12) Space Based Production
(6) Activation (13) Operations
(7) Transportation
3O
k
25
O)
O
2O
_-4
°r.4
O_
(13) _f"
O
Ir. A-5.) --..

I \_ _ "11 it- ......... ... ",-..
//,,, \ \\ /\._ _'-.... '"-_-.. "--._
i
,, --_ .
_ X,,,.
(8)
\ ...................
. "-.. "'"_.--
""-....... ""-"_
.....
..... ZT__.Z.X.7.:
1981 1985 1900 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure 5-23. Estimated Annual Expenditures - LRU Concept C
(:
(1) SPS ltardware Development (8) Earth Based Satellite Hardware Production
4O
(2) Construction System (9) Earth Rectenna Production
(3) Earth Based Facilities & Equipment (10) Launch Facility Ops/Transportation
35 (5) Space Based Facilities & Equipment (12) Space Based Production
(6) Activation (13) Operations
(7) Transportation
30
O 25
L-,-
o_
Ol
! O 2O
{D
o
,d,.4
15 13)_L.._ - _.t"*
II -"-
10 [ A \'k \./
1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Figure 5-24. Estimated Annual Expenditures- LRU Concept D.

undertake such a program. For a program of this magnitude, some sort of
consortium would probably have to be formed in order to provide the required
funding.
5.5.2 Present Value
As was mentior_d earlier, the present value analysis is a useful economic tool
which permits direct comparisons of alternative investment projects from the
standpoint of cost, expenditure timing and the time value of money. It is merely
a means of providing additional insight into the economic viability of each alternative
and is by no means the single deciding factor on project selection. Total costs allow
the determination of the program which is lower in cost, but fail to tell us when
the money will be spent. Funding spreads, tell us the timing of required expenditures
but do not include the time value of money. The present value analysis includes all
three facets. The output of the analysis is the cost of each alternative program in
discounted dollars. In simplistic terms the analysis answers the question, "how much
money would have to be put in a bank savings account right now to finance the entire
program per the funding schedule, given the money earns compound interest?" The
use of discounted dollars then, puts the alternatives on an equal basis for comparison.
The value of the entire program is expressed at one point in time.
The appropriate discount rate to use in determining present values is in the order
of 10 percent. To allow for the uncertainty in the rate, three rates were actually
chosen for the present study: 7%, 10% and 15%. Discounted dollars were determined
using each of the three rates and the results are shown in Figures 5-25, 5-26 and 5--27.
The present value is plotted on a cumulative basis by year through program end for each
of the program alternatives. This was done to show at what point in the overall pro-
gram that the LRU present values become lower than the Earth Baseline. It should
be kept in mind that the primary criteria is the total present value, or that point
2O0
Earth
Baseline
180
160
Concept D
Concept C
140.
Concept B
120
F--4
o
q_
O i00
{D
¢o
or'4 Present value of costs discounted @ 7%:
80 Concept B: $139.075
Concept C: $152. 745
(D
O Concept D: $153.730
(9 6O
Earth Baseline: $191. 700
4O
2O
0
1981 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Year
Figure 5-25. Cumulative Present Value Comparison of Costs at a 7%

Discount Rate.
Present Value of Costs Discounted @ 10%:
20_
Concept B: $90.907
Concept C: $100. 092
Concept D: $101.615
180
Earth Baseline: $118.044
160
140
120
k
GO "-o 100
0
o
•,_ 80
o_,,,,I
o 60
u
4O
2O
0
1981
Figure 5-26. Cumulative Present Value Comparison of Costs at a 10_

Discount Rate.
c: ,
200 Present Value of costs discounted @ 15%:
Concept B: $52.518
Concept C: $57.953
180 Concept D: $59.407
Earth Baseline: $61. 893
160
140
t--4
120
0
100
0
k-a ,_.,4
*t.-4
._ 80
0
(9 Earth
6O Baseline
._ _= _-.:--......................... -'-- ..... _ Concept D
4O
/z/_S7 ''_ Concept B
2O
0,
1981
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
YEAR
Figlare 5--27. Cumulative Present Value Comparison of Costs at a 15_j Discount Rate.
on the far right hand side of each curve. The intermediate points only serve to provide
a relative ranking if the program funding were cut off for some reason before the end
of the originally planned program life.
The three sets of curves show the same relative rankings of the alternatives. LRU
Concept B has the lowest present value, followed by Concept C, Concept D and then
the Earth Baseline. This ranking supports the earlier analysis based on the nominal
total cost. It indicates that all the LRU alternatives are superior to the Earth
Baseline. The present values shown in Figures 5-25 through 5-27 were based on the
nom.inal cost. The same approach could be applied to the +3¢ costs established
earlier in order to determine the effects of cost uncertainty on the present value
analysis. A summary of results is contained in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14. Present Values of the Alternatives.

(billions of 1977 dollars)
V
Billions Present Value Of Costs Discounted At
of Dollars 7_ 10% 15%
Earth Baseline 191.7 118.0 61.9

LRU Concept B 139.1 90.9 52.5
LRU Concept C 152.8 100.1 58.0
LRU Concept D 153.7 101.6 59.4
5-82
PRELI_AflNA.RY DECISION ANALYSIS (TASK 5.5)
TASK -- For the programs in which lunar utilizationappears both economically and
technically feasible, determine the economic and schedlle achievements which would
justifydecisions to expend funds for implementing each of the several steps in an
evolutionary lunar utilizationprogram.
APPROACH -- Perform an assessment of how best to proceed with LRU should a suit-
ably large space production program be authorized. The basic premise is that use of
lunar resources should be maintained as a viable construction option through the early
phases of program development until sufficientinformation becomes available to support

i a decision concerning its suitabilityand economic effectiveness.
A program to utilize lunar materials for construction of large space systems must
proceed through implementation steps which relate to and parallel the development and
demonstration of the end product. The results of the LRU study obtained to date have
indicated that an ambitious space program is required before utilizationof lunar
resources becomes economically feasible. Prior to embarking on a program of this
ma_nitude, a substantial satellitedevelopment effort would be required which is
relatively independent of the final location selected for material resources acquisition.
The initialoutput of this task is to define suitable interaction between an earth baseline
construction program and a LRU optional program for construction of similar large
space systems. This has been accomplished by assuming that any space program large
enough to justify LRU consideration would require an earth-based "proof-of-concept
phase" including prototype demonstration, prior to committing to full-scale production.
During this "proof-of-concept" program activityassociated with the proposed product,

kJ
parallel efforts can evaluate and demonstrate the effectiveness of lunar resource
6-1
utilization. The identification of these parallel programs, their interaction, and key
decision points is contained in the following subsection. Subsequent work generates
development schedules for these parallel programs. The economic and schedule
achievements needed at the completion of each program phase to continue with an
evolutionary lunar resource utilization program are then evaluated.
6.1 PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEFINITION
An end product development and demonstration program will go through at least five
major phases prior to the actual production of the operational space system.
1. The conceptual design of the product and its required manufacturing facilities
and support systems.
2. Tests conducted on earth to develop and demonstrate the basic technologies
necessary for the program to perform as specified.
3. A second-generation of technology demonstrations conducted in space to verify
successful performance of critical components and subsystems.
4. Development of the capability to perform a space system demonstration as proof
of concept. This phase culminates in operation of the demonstration system.
5. Implementation of those space facilities and support elements needed to initiate
'production of full-scale satellite systems.
These five end product development phases are summarized by the following block
diagram describing the program flow.
design --_ development development • development lull scale

phase lesling lesling demonstration production
Discrete steps in the development of lunar resource utilization can be accomplished in
parallel with these end product development phases, These parallel paths are inter-
connected by natural decision points which require comparative reassessment of progress
and continuing viability of the LRU option. A presentation of these parallel program
paths is shown in Figure 6-1.
6-2
=
'll'IrTIl !'!:i" "' ! '!:'_'_
LARGE EARLY START-UP FOR

PRODUCTION
SPACE SYSTEM TERRESTRIAL SPACE SPACE SYSTEM FULL-SCALE
CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SATELLITE AND
DESIGN TESTS TESTS ELEMENT PROOUCTIOIN PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
BASELINE
EARTH
CONSTRUCTION ]
STRUCTURAL SIIUITI E DERIVED IIEAVY LIFT
IRANSPORIAIION SATELLITE COMPONENTS SYSTEMS t AUNCII VEIIICLE
VEHICLES TEST & EVALUATION
TRAHSPONTATIOH PFRSOHNELORBITAL C60 ASSEMBLY
SATELLITE SYSTEMS TRANSFERVEIIICLE
EAOTIi BASELINE SYSTEM MAINE BASE
SATELLITE
DESIGN CONCEPTITERATION
POWER ITAL CONSTRUCTION&
EXPANDEDLEO
DEMONSTRATION
SYSTEMS TRANSFERVEIIICLE SUPPORTBASE
INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION& I
ELLMLNIS ENVIRONMENTAL DEMO SATELLITE I SATELLITE
INFRASTHUCTUIIE I
TECHNOLOGY EFFECTS CONSTBUC I CONSTRUCTION
I I I
FACILITY
o_ DECI.SiON LED IIABIlAT &
I PROPELLANI DEPOT SPACEMFO FACILITY
DECISION+
IRANSPORTATION IDEMO SATELLITE)
D[MO SATELLITE
VEHICLES
i
I
LUNAR POLAR
ONDITER I COMPONENTS&
SUBASSEMBLIES
I
I
LEO SUPPORTBASLE
I I IDEMO FACILITIES|
LUNAR MAT'L I I
I STRUCTURAL I STRUCTURALSYSTLMS"
PROCESSING _% GdENERAL I LUNAR MINING BASE
STU_ES SYSTEMS O£VELOPMEIIT TESTS
SATEI LIIE
SPACE MFG CONCEPT DESIGN MAT'L POOCESS MA/'L PROCESSFACILITY LUNAR MAIEBIAL
FACILITY PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENTTESTS /AAHSPORTA|ION SYS
STIIDIES MEG I'ECHHOLOGY
M/LHIIFACTUIIING I}EVEIOPMEH[ TESTS COIV (MDDIFIED FOB
MAI'L PROCESSING PROTOTYPE MANUI-ACIUAUIG FACILITY
LUNAR PODPELLANTSI
INFNASIRUCIUDE
ELEMENTS IiP, NSPOBIA & TDAIMSPORIATIONSYGTEM PERSOHNELLUNAR
tHFRASIRUCIUBE TflANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENTTESTS TRANSFERVEIII£1 E
IECIINOLODY SYSTEMS
RESOURCES
UTILIZATION
OPTION
Figure 6-1. Parallel Development Programs for Earth Baseline

and LILU Satellite Construction.
Several preliminary observations regarding Figure 6-1 should be made: (1) the earth
kJ
baseline path and LRU path appear to be independent, but in fact offer many opportunities
for interaction and cross influence as development progresses. For example, if LRU
technology demonstrations prove successful, this should influence the design and con-
struction of the demonstration satellite toward LRU material compatibility. (2) Most
of the systems produced to support construction of the demonstration satellite, plus the
demonstration satellite itself should be suitable for application to the LRU program.
Thus, a key decision point occurs at demo satellite operation -- a choice between the
earth baseline and LRU construction options could logically be made at this point. If
LRU is selected, rapid startup of lunar and space manufacturing facilities will be
required to maintain program momentum.
As an alternative, lunar resource utilization for satellite construction could be delayed
while lunar material compatible satellites are constructed with earth resources° This
allows earth-based production and operation of the product while the additional facilities
needed for LRU are developed and started up on a more leisurely schedule. These
implementation options are highlighted by the following block diagram.
Construct product
with earth malerial abruptly Initiate construction
] Phase in LRU
Or
immediately using
lunar resources &
Continue LRU concept ---_l Phase in LRU
developmenl space manufacturing
I slowly
Interaction between the parallel programs shown in Figure 6-1 is discussed in the
following paragraphs.
1. Larg e Space System Conceptual Design Phase
Baseline activities concentrate on defining the end prockmt satellite and support elements
(launch vehicles, habitats, and construction fixtures) needed_o construct the satellite.
LRU option work primarily involves assessment of how baseline support elements can
be adapted or utilized as-is to conduct the optional program. In addition, conceptual
definition of unique LRU elements such as lunar mining, hmar material transport,
6-4
and space manufacturing is accomplished. Interaction is primarily involved with
achieving maximum compatibility with transportation vehicles and infrastructure
elements for the two parallel programs.
The interim decision point following this phase involves a "continue" or "discontinue"
option for the LRU path. Discontinuation would be based on very unfavorable economic
analysis study results or a grossly inadequate level of technology readiness.
2. Terrestrial Development Testing Phase
These initial development tests are performed on earth to demonstrate technology
readiness for both the earth baseline and LRU programs. Interaction is primarily
concerned with the effects of construction material origin (earth or moon) on the satellite
design. Hopefully, a compromise satellite design will evolve which is compatible with
lunar resource limitations. A compatible design might also permit expandedspace

m_
processing of earth construction materials, which could improve (increase) earth-
launched payload densities for the baseline satellite.
An interim decision point after this phase also provides a "continue LRU program"
option if test results and other progress so warrento
3. Early Space Development Testing Phase
Certain technology demonstrations, especially those at the subsystem level, can best
be performed in the system's natural operating environment. These tests are all
launched with the Space Shuttle, and will provide practical experience with new hard-
ware under realistic operational conditions. Earth baseline and LRU option development
tests are relatively independent of each other and little, if any, interaction is required.
Earth baseline program tests are product satellite and transportation system oriented,
with special emphasis on the environmental effects of satellite operation and launch
vehicle exhaust products. LRU program Shuttle-launched tests are primarily associated
with lunar material processing and manut'acturing protot_q_e equipment development.
6-5
Simulated lunar material obtained from earth will be used for these tests. Special
transportation and satellite tests will also be performed for unique lunar material
applications. An example of a unique LRU application involves COTV thruster testing.
For the earth baseline, argon propellant will be utilized and thruster tests will be
accomplished using this propellant° The LRU COTV will utilize oxygen which can be
obtained from the moon, rather than argon. Tests to evaluate thruster performance
and redesign for oxygen must be conducted as part of the LRU option path. A special
LRU activity which occurs during this phase is the launch of a lunar polar orbiter
resources mapping satellite. Sensors on this satellite will scan the entire lunar
surface to determine if concentrated deposits of useful materials exist. This data
will be relayed to earth and evaluated to determine the optimal location for a lunar
base.
Another interim "continue LRU program/discontinue LRU program" decision point
follows the early space development testing phase.

%J
4. Space System Development and Element Production Phase
During this phase the purpose and emphasis of the two parallel programs differ con-
siderably. The LRU option development tests comprise a se.cond_generation test
series to those performed in the preceding phase. The earth baseline construction
program, however, develops and constructs those system elements required to build a
demonstration satellite. These system elements include transportation vehicles,
habitats, and demonstration satellite construction facilities. The demonstration
satellite should be of sufficient size to provide useful earth services and will probably
require development of a Shuttle-derived vehicle with increased payload capacity.
Interaction between parallel program paths Is especially important during this phase
for two reasons: (a) the demonstration satellite should reflect construction features of
both the earth baseline and lunarized satellite design configuration. This may be imple-
mented with a compromise design, or by incorporation several alternative designs in

%j
different satellite sections. (b) If the LRU option is subsequently selected, the
6-6
demonstration satelliteand its support elements will be used as integTal parts of LRU
manufacturing facilities. Extensive planning will be required to build in compatible
features needed for this integration.
Following the successful construction and operation of the demonstration satellite,
a key decision point is reached. Some possible alternative decisions include:
• Cancel the entire program (most likelyif the demonstration results in
unsuccessful sateiliteoperation).
• Discontinue work on the lunar resources utilizationoption and initiatefull-
scale production of earth baseline satellites.
• Discontinue work on the earth baseline construction option and initiatefull-
scale production of satellitesprimarily constructed with lunar resources.
• Continue both paths. Construct initialproduction satelliteswith earth
resources and switch over at some later date to lunar resources. The
satellitemust be specifically designed to accommodate this transition
between construction material sources.
5. Start-up for Full Scale Satellite Production Phase
Develop and deploy transportation systems and facilities needed to support production
and operation of full-scale satellites. The preceding decision may result in proceeding
with only one path. Path unique vehicles and facilities are identified in Figure 6-1.
Both the earth baseline and LRU option can utilize the demonstration satellite and its
support equipment as part of the full-scale manufacturing facilities. The demonstration
satellite can be adapted to provide space manufacturing facility power. The construction
jig can either be expanded for similar application with production satellites or could be
utilized for assembling COTVs in LEO. The launch vehicles developed for the
demonstration satellite (SDV, POTV, COTV) should be acceptable for use with the LRU
option due to its low quantity requirement for earth-delivered materials.
"--4
6-7
6. Production and Operations Phase
Full-scale satellites are constructed and maintained to provide useful earth services.
Three development phases for the earth baseline and LRU construction programs are
identified in Figure 6-1. These three phases consist of terrestrial development tests,
early space development tests, and system development tests, and contain the majority
of system element requirements which distinguish between the two construction
techniques. These system elements have been organized into transportation-related,
product design-related, product manufacturing-related, and infrastructure-related
categories in Tables J-1 through J-4, respectively, of Appendix J. The reference
NASA-_SC 10 GW solar power satellite has been used as the product example for
Table J-2, as it was in the preceding study technical tasks. LRU system Concept B
has been employed as the representative lunar material use option.
A top-level comparison of these development requirements has been made by assigning
each system element one of the following designations:
1. A common element which exhibits similar development requirements
for both the earth baseline and LRU construction options.
2. A LRU peculiar element which is based on development requirements
similar to those for another element in the earth baseline option.
(Such as a habitat or propellant depot used in another orbital location. )
3. A unique element for which no corresponding development requirement
exists in the alternative program.
The thirty-two system elements described in Appendix J of Volume III have been
assigned these designations, and the results obtained are summarized in Table 6-1.
_J
6-8
Table 6-1. System Element Development Comparison.
Element Category
Transpor- Satellite Manufac- Infra-
Designation tat-ion System turing Structure
Table 6-1) (Table 6-2) (Table 6-3) (Table 6-4) Total
I) Common 3 4 2 3 12
Elements,
Similar Reqts
2) Peculiar 1 0 0 5 6
Elements,
Similar Reqts
i
3) Unique 2 LRU 3 LRU 5 LRU 3 LRU 14

Elements, I B/L
Dissimilar
Requirements
,,,,,
Total 7 7 7 11 32
%J Fourteen of these 32 system elements, or 44 percent, are unique to either the lunar re-
sources utilization program or the earth baseline program. The earth baseline program
has only one unique element, ioe., HLLV development, while LRU requires development
of 13 unique items such as the mass driver catapult, lunar mining equipment, lunar habitat,
and the space manufacturing facility.
It is the successful development of these 13 LRU program unique system elements, plus
the ex'tended duration required for production start-up to implement lunar mining and
space manufacturing facilities, which become important program assessment points for the
decision analysis.
6.2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES
An example earth baseline SPS program schedule has been generated to span from 1979
through completion of the first commercial satellite. The key milestones used in develop--
ing this schedule were obtained from the "SPS Concept Development and Evaluation
Program" reference system report, issued by DOE and NASA in October 1978. The key
6-9
milestones are.
• Joint DOE-NASA Final Program Recommendations- June 1980
• Technology Availability Date is 1990
• SPS O_erational Date is Year 2000
In addition, we have assumed that a demonstration satellitewill be built and tested three
years following the technology readiness date. We think a scale demonstration of use-
ful space power generation and transmission will be a politicalrequisite to embarking on
a commercial SPS program.
Figure 6-2 shows the example earth baseline SPS program schedule derived from the
key milestone information. The schedule is organized into two major headings; technology
development, and space systems development. Also shown are milestones and decision
points associated with go-ahead for major hardware items and economic assessment of
SPS with other terrestrial power generation techniques. Two additional key milestones
V
have been included with those used for schedule development. The achievement of interim
technology goals in mid 1985 leads to the decision to build a demonstration satellite. This
decision promotes escalated technology development testing in space, and provides go-
ahead for launch vehicle final design and production. The-other milestone is start-up for
commercial SPS construction. This occurs two years prior to the 1.5 years needed for
construction of the first commercial satellite. The two year start-up period encompasses
delivery of transfer vehicles into low earth orbit (LEO), construction of the COTV assembly
fixture and vehicle in LEO, transfer of SPS construction facility hardware to geosynchronous
orbit (GEO), and assembly of this facility in GEO.
The only space system development schedule not directly tied to the construction of either
the demonstration or commercial satellite is the LEO base. We have assumed that go-ahead
for this facility will occur shortly after the shuttle becomes operational, and that its primary
function will not be SPS related. The SPS development schedule shows LEO base availability
in 1987, which would support space technology testing. The base would be subsequently ex-
panded to support SPS demonstration and commercial construction programs.
6-10
A corresponding SPS development schedule for a lunar resource utilization program is
depicted in Figure 6-3. This schedule retains the same early key milestones employed
ii!ii!
in the baseline schedule, and uses Concept B as the representative LRU implementation
option. The year 2000, shown as the date for first commercial LRU SPS on-line, was
not used as a given milestone. Our original approach assumed that one or more additional
years might be needed between successful demonstration satellite operation and commercial
SPS on-line to develop the LRU peculiar system elements and perform the more compli-
cated start-up operations. We discovered, however, that the development of LRU peculiar
elements and common elements could be conducted in parallel and the additional year
required for startup could be scheduled within the 1993 -,-1999 span to support the mid
2000 date for completion of SPS construction. Thus the earth baseline and lunar resource
utilization schedules span the same period and terminate with completion of an equivalent
end product. Therefore, all major decision points and key milestones contained in
Figures 6-2 and 6-3 are compatible.
The LRU schedule in Figure 6.3 is also organized into two major sections; technology
development, and space systems development. The technology development section includes
that LRU peculiar technology work which must be accomplished in addition to the baseline
technology work shown in Figure 6.2. The space systems development section includes all
the major elements needed to perform the LRU SPS program. Some of these elements are
also required to support the earth baseline program, but have been repeated in Fibre 6.3
so their schedule relationship with LRU peculiar elements can be readily identified.
6.3 ACHIEVEMENTS NEEDED TO JUSTIFY FUNDING
Comparison of the earth baseline SPS and lunar resource utilization SPS schedules pre-
sented in Figures 6.2 and 6-3 indicates that only minor differences exist for development
of common system elements. This compatibility presupposes that sufficient data e.xists
to justify a decision to utilize eithe___..!earth o__.rlunar resources upon successful completion
of demonstration satellite tests. If suitable information is not available, or the political
6-11
Figure 6-2. Example Earth Baseline SPS Program Plan - Summary Schedule
PII_IBAM PIIASE_ YEAR 79 80 81 82 83 84 851 ss I 87 [ 88 89 90 91 92 93 I 94 I 95 196[ 97 I 98 99 00

Ill I I I I I
CONCEPT EVALUATION . DECISION TO DECISION TO INITIATE
(NASA_)OE A_E_ ENT) _---::_.'." /X BUII,D Dl'_btO i_. COMMERCIAL PROGRAId
l I I
/ ! I
SATELLITE DESIGN IIIIIIIIIIII ,,,,,,,,,,.,.,,i,
| IIII IIIII ,,,,,...,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,
IIIIIIIIIII1_:':'_:::"" "::':.,
"_TE,,_,E,_AT/" ''i _° _o_,_E.CI_L :
TECIINO_GY DEVELOPMENT
• ENERGY CONVER_ON i ....... EFF|CIEN_:Y W. | " " _':,_- '._-::::::::" I II [
• POWER TRANSMISSION
• STRUCTI.IR ES ili!il-il _._.'_ "_e.4_.',W,B ::,_ ,.-_!i:: SPACE S_tuI"rLE) I :
*'*
-!iii!!! _ i!!!_!!!i!!! _ _, :::':_'i!'!::::::::
_._:_.__;: i:::!::.::::::: : i .......... :":' ............ ;_;_
_ _:, _ii_.! ........
i_"_"'SPACE - TESTS 'I i
• PROPULSION .r.s.:i:i ":!:i:Jii!_i!i i!i :::_ <<:!:_:[::.:!:!i , i
• ORBITAL CONSTRUCTION
ECO_MIC A_E_E_
k • _ ! I / '
SPACE _S. DEVELOPMENT
c_
I ,, TECHNOI.OGY SUPPORT TE_NG
• LEO BASE
• SDV IIIIII IIIIII_ UlIIIIIIIIII i
• POTV
• PROPELLANT DEPOT
IIIIIIl'lllill IIV//////.Al l l
• COTV I!1111Iii111 II,I//J)////l_lllllllllllllllillllllT///////,ll_
,,,,,,
,,,,,,.
,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,
-- ._
• IILLV
• CONSTRUCTION FACILItiES
• SATELLITE
KEY MILESTONES
SPS RETAINED INTERIM TECIINOI._Y _ICCE_FUI. : _ART-UP COMMERCIAL
AS ALTERNATIVE TECIINOLOGY READINESS DEMON_'RATION ! [

ENEI{GY SOURCE GOALS ACIIIEVED I I SATELIJTE OPERATION I
[ I 87 88 I 89 I 90 I 911 92 I 93 I 94 I' 95 I SPS ON-IJNE

YEAR
IIIlllllll FINAL DESIGN l I_SPACE ASSEMBLY
7"//.///;_ FABRICA'I'iON V_ SPACE TEEI_NG

/ PIll
Figure 6-3. Example Lunar Resource Utilization SPS Program Plan - Summary Schedule
FK(KillAM PIIASE..,.....-_--_- YEAR

79 80 81 I 82 83 J 84 ss i se I s7 I 8s I s9 I 90 91 92 9a I 94 I 95i 9-61 97 I 98 99 00
LRU STUDIES AND i [ I | I I I I' I " I "1 I I I
! ...... t ........... _-. -- D|':CIS_ON TO CONS'r]IIUCT DECISION TO INITIATE Ll-lU
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENTS
l I......_........... p_=.__k LRU COMPATIBLE DEMO 'COMMERCIA" PROGI{ TM
LUNARIZED SAT. DESIGN ,,,,,,I,,,,,6,,,,

,,,,,,,
,,,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, _iJ
::::::
/1,,re|
TECItNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT I I / INTER_I)IATE I DEMO COM.EI_CI^L

• LUNAR MAT'L PROCES_NG / / l ,m_OGnESS ASSESS'MENT I / ,.
• SPACE MANUFACTURING
• AUTOMATED PRODUCTION
!_i!i_i_l_::::i!iii!lii_i!i::!_|i_!_!i!_i
_i_ii_ _ _ _ _ _2._i_ ii_
_
• KLYSTRON & DC-DC CONV :::::::l:
:::::::::::::::::::::
:::;:: :::_(_ :g':_ _ _ _,,-: ,,..
:.:
MAT'L SUBSTITUTIONS
• FOAMED CERAMIC i'i';';
':':':" ";........""""""""......
:': :':" :':':" '; :-:':" l::-::': :':':':':':':':':
:':':':':':':':':" :':':':
I':':':" ":'=''=
:':':':" ":"":_'""'_'"
:':':':': :':':':'; _::'_"_ _!
":':" (SPACE SHTJTTLE)
;::*":_::':_::_:!*::'*!: _:::* :_:_:_:!:_:__:_:_ :_:_:_:_
:_:_:_:_::_:_:_:::
_:_ :_::f •
STRUCTURE & WAVEGUIDES i!i!ii
iliiii_i!iiii_i_!i_i_ii
_ _ _:: _ _ v_ _L_ _i:iiili':
• COTV LO2 PROPELLANT
• MASS DRIVER/CATCilER
SPACE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
c_ • LEO BASE TECilNOIXK_Y SUPPORT TESTING

I IIIIII IIIIII IIIIII
i...i IIIIII///_////_ "/_I NN:, "l,'.'_--_
r"_--__-
: I i
• SDV
!11111
IIIIii IIIIII IIIIII t _//, ;//;/_/y.'_ x
• POTV
'
IIIIII IIIIIII IIIII (
•
•
PROPELLANT
COTV
DEPOTS
r
,,,,,, Innnn iil_ I///_, LLOI/SMF
UJ|JJJ Ijlr/_///Jix LEO --,-LLO .
LEO--_GEO IIIII IIIIII III///////I!_ IIIIII |
• LTV
I IIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIII////7/Z, I
• MASS DRIVER/CATCilER i I
IIIIIII////_/'//_, II i_ INSTALLATION
• LUNAr( BASE i I
' _ i [ lill:llllJllll I iiiiii i
i11111IIIIII IIIIIIII ;///_ 7/1_,
• SPACE MFG FACILITIES
IIIIII IIIIII ||V;(//,4, 7//_ "._=1 IX
• CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
• SATELLITE Iii111iIIIII IIIIIIIIII ilnll/////_j_li Iii111 IIIIIHIIIIII7///'//// IlL_

KEY MILESTONES I A IIIII _/'/Z/2 I _.m'_p_. //I"/,///////_////, I_
SPS RETAINED IN'rEII I_1 TECI INOLOGY SUCCESSFUL , START-UP COMM EI{C[AL
AS ALTERNATIVE
ENERGY SOUR CE OALSAC,,EV
.E INE S DEMON.IONI
T.A,I I LILU SPS
ON-LINE
YEAR 7:1I 8o t 8i I 82 981 .._J o.
IIIIIIIIII FINAL DESIGN I IN-SPACE ASS_tBLY
/////// FABRICATION IF',_F',.IIF',,_

SPACE TESTING
situation makes a clear-cut decision unwise, both earth and lunar based programs might
be continued. In this parallel commercial program scenario, earth resources
would be used exclusively for construction of early commercial satellites. Rapid
transition to construction based primarily on lunar resources could be accomplished
after a discrete production run of earth material satellites, or a gradual transition from
earth to lunar materials could be accomplished during construction of several satellites.
The achievements needed to justify LRU selection are similar for all of these scenarios,
but are clearer for the either/or scenario which is assumed in the following description.
A simplified development schedule for the lunar resource utilization SPS program is
shown in Fig'are 6-4. The first line on this schedule identifies two major and two
supporting decision points which must be satisfied to continue with an LRU SPS
program. The two major program decision points occur in mid 19.85 and early 1993,
and correspond to the commitment to construct a demonstration satellite and initiation
of a commercial SPS program, respectively. Specific accomplishments must be
achieved by these dates to support each decision. These accomplishments are listed
in Table 6-2, The mid-1985 decision point accomplishments consist of launch vehicle
and SPS technology developments needed to construct the demonstration satellite.
These accomplishments are relatively independent of LRU considerations, and therefore
the ten items listed in the left column of Table 6-2 are equally applicable to either the
earth baseline or LRU SPS program. It is especially important for the LRU program,
however, that these demonstration satellite development require merits do not preclude
or adversely influence the eventual use of lunar resources for SPS construction.
The early !993 accomplishments listed in Table 6-2's right column are primarily
associated with lunar resource utilization. Only two items; successtul demonstration
satellite operation, and habitat development, are applicable to both the earth baseline
and LRU commercial SPS program. Thus, the critical decision point for lunar resource
utilization occurs in early 1993, with preceding supporting decision points in early 1982
6-14
Program Phase I Year
79 99 00
Decision points zE!
Economic Status
i : Assessment
Technology
Development
Terreslrlal tests .iIIIIIUlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItII' Illlllllllltllllltllllt[::::::::::::::
Space tests ;::::::::lllllllllilllltl !IIIIIIIIIIIIIilIIIIIIIH:::::::::::::
Space systems
Development
LEO base IIIIIIlUlIilIIIIIIIIIII IIIUIIil,3
Transportation sys Illllllllillll IllllllUllllllllllllllt._
Construction facil IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIUE.
Demonslralion SPS Illll IIIIIIIIililIIIIIIIIIIIIIUlIIIIE::: Test
SMF
IIIIIIlUlIliIII|IIIIII IllllllllllllUllllllllllllb
Transportation sys IllUIiIIIIIIII! illlUlllllillr_
Lunar base Illll IiIIUIIIIIIIIilUlIA
Construction facil Illll IIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|%
Commercial SPS Illllllllllllllllllll IIIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillll_
Key milestones Z%
SPS retained Interim Technology Successful Commercial
as alternative technology readiness demo SPS SPS on-line
energy source goals achieved operation
Figure 6-4. Example Lunar Resource Utilization SPS Development Schedule.
Table 6-2. Critical LRU Development Requirements.
To support a decision to To support a decision to

construct a demonstration SPS
Initiate a commercial LRU SPS program
Target decision date -- mid 1985 Target decision date -- mid 1993
Commit to develop Successful demonslratlon of

• Solar power demonstration satellite
• LEO space platform
* Shuttle-derived vehicle • In-space processing of simulated lunar
material
• Personnel orbital transfer vehicle
• Silicon refining
Demonstrate technology readiness
• Oxygen liquefaction
- Ion-electric COTV
• Space manufacturing
• Propellant depot
• Modular habitats
• Large space structures
Demonstrate technology readi.ess
• SPS microwave power transmission
• Mass driver catapult
• Low-cost solar cells
• Mass catcher
Assurance of
• Ion-electric COTV oxy0en thrusters
• SPS economic competitiveness
Completion of lunar resources survey
• SPS environmental issues resolution
Economic substantiation o! LRU SPS
6-15
and early 1989 needed for interim assessment of LRU technology readiness. Corres-
%.,-
ponding decision points in Figures 6-1 and 6-4 are identified by the numbers 1 through 4.
The achievements identified in the preceding discussion are associated with the develop-
ment status of required technologies and commitments to produce critical system
hardware elements. In conjunction with these achievements, incremental assessments
of lunar resource utilization economic feasibility must be performed. LRU cost
effective status should be updated at regular intervals to provide visibility into the
effects that technology achievements have on the overall viability of satellite con-
structlon using lunar resources. As a minimum, these economic status reviews
should correspond with the decision points identified in Figure 6-4. Additional inter-
mediate reviews in early 1980, early 1984, early 1987, and mid-1991 would also be
worthwhile to ensure that actual developments do not adversely affect the predicted
benefits of lunar resource utilization.
6-16
RECOMMENDATIONS (TASK 5.7)
TASK -- Recommend further analyses or investigations which would provide additional
verification and support of study conclusions on the feasibility of using lunar resources
for space construction and techniques to attain this capability. A plan, including costs
and schedule, for conducting such recommended future work shall be prepared.
APPROACH -- Identification of LRU areas requiring additional effort has been obtained
from results of the technical feasibility assessment of Task 5.3, the preliminary
decision analysis of Task 5.5, and the sensitivity and un'certainty analyses of Task 5.6.
Recommendations and plans have been prepared in two general categories:
• Activities required to reduce the uncertainties in study conclusions.
• Activities related to the attainment of LRU capability.
The need for continued activities in the first category arises from uncertainties in the
technical and economic data used to develop the study conclusions on LRU feasibility.
Results of Task 5.6 have indicated that RDT&E key cost uncertainty contributors
include major space facilities and transportation vehicles. Additional definition of
these elements is required to reduce the uncertainty in study conclusions, especially
those pertaining to the LRU material requirements threshold point.
Recommended activities in this category include more detailed system studies of the
most favorable LRU concept which uses the mass driver catapult for lunar material
transport and performs all material processing andproduction in a space manufacturing
facility. Study results have indicated that solar cell manufacturing is the major con-
tributor to space manufacturing facility cost, which has a relatively large uncertainty
factor. This should be further analyzed to improve the LRU feasibility assessment.
7-1
Also included in the first category are recommendations andplans for additional risk
k.#
and decision analyses. Such supplementary efforts are required to provide NASA with
a basis for decisions regarding the implementation of LRU activities.
The second category of recommendations and plans is concerned with those activities
which should be accomplished as steps toward the eventual attainment of LRU capability.
These activities pertain primarily to technology developments such as lunar material
substitutes for SPS components, space processing and manufacturing techniques, and
unique transportation vehicle subsystems including the mass driver, mass catcher,
and oxygen ion-electric thruster.
Recommended future activities from both categories have been compiled into an over-
all plan for future LRU activities. This plan identifies each activity element and
includes a schedule and estimated costs. Interrelationships between activitiy elements
have been considered in developing the schedule data.
The following writeup, Subsection 7.1, provides a shopping list of potential system
study tasks and technology development activities. Subsection 7.2 ranks these
activities and provides a suggested schedule for their implementation. LRU-related
Shuttle technology experiments are proposed in Subsection 7.3.
7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK
Additional activity associated with lunar resources utilization can be segregated into
two types; system level paper studies which augment and expand the work conducted
by this study, and technology studies which concentrate on developing the long lead
technology needs which are peculiar to LRU. These technology studies generally
include experimental work which can be initially conducted in a laboratory, but which
may eventually require Shuttle-based space verification testing.
7-2
7.1.1 SYSTEM STUDY RECOMI_IENDATIONS
Study tasks have been organized into three categories:
• Updated study tasks -- results of study work and reviewer comments have
identified technical data which should be modified or revised. The effect
of these revisions on overall study results should then be evaluated.
• Expanded study tasks -- tasks in the current study were limited in both
scope and depth by schedule and funding limitations. Our preliminary
results have indicated areas where expanded study activity should be
beneficial.
• New study tasks -- useful investigative activities outside the scope of
the current study.
Updated Study Tasks
1o All LRU concepts in the current study assumed use of the Space Shuttle (Orbiter +
External Tank ÷ Solid Rocket Boosters) for launch and return of all space personnel.
The SDV (Orbiter + External Tank + Flyback Booster) was employed exclusively for
cargo delivery° Lower costs should result if the SDV is also used as a personnel
launch vehicle, due to its increased reusability and reduced operating costs. Assess
SDV use for personnel transport.
2. Ion-electric COTV velocity requirements for cargo transfer between major activity
locations were conservatively based on those for self powered SPS modules which use
a significant percentage of their propellant for attitude control. Smaller COTV arrays,
less thrusters, and reduced propellant requirements should result if more reasonable
AV values are employed. Evaluate COTVs with less conservative AV requirements.
3. Power requirements for the lunar base were assumed to be supplied by nuclear
reactor with a Brayton tubomachinery driven generator. The estimated mass used
for this equipment appears to be optimistically low. A lunar base power supply trade
study should be conducted to evaluate a revised nuclear system with various solar
powered concepts. (See expanded study tasks.)

7-3
4. Revise the steady state material requirements logistics scenario and start-up
requirements for LRU Concept B. Incorporate the revisions noted above, plus the
following:
a. Updated personnel requirements as estimated in Subsection 4.9.
b. Updated SPS material requirements as estimated in Subsection 4.7.
c. Update habitat requirements to accommodate the revised personnel
estimates.
d. Include other suitable revisions obtained from results of expanded and
new study tasks.
5. Revise the LRU Concept B nominal cost estimate to incorporate the effect of
updated steady state logistics and startup results.
6. Revise the uncertainty analysis to incorporate nominal cost revisions from the
preceding task, and adjust element uncertainties based on improved definitions
obtained from expanded and new study task results.
Expanded Study Tasks -- Transportation Related
7. Preliminary conceptual design of modular ion-electric cargo orbital transfer
vehicle (COTV) using oxygen propellant; including configuration, orbital construction
procedure, maintenance techniques, mass estimates, performance data, and transfer
trajectories/timelines.
8. Preliminary conceptual design of the lunar mass driver catapult; including config-
uration, construction technique, maintenance requirements, mass estimate, and
performance data.
9. Trade study of possible mass catcher material arresting equipment and propulsion
system(s) designs. The propulsion system design should incorporate both the catcher
maneuvering/positioning requirements and terminal tug transfer/docking requirements.
7-4
Based on trade study results, conduct a preliminary conceptual design of the mass
catcher; including configuration, maintenance techniques, mass estimate, and
performance data.
10. Improved conceptual design of Shuttle derived vehicle (SDV). Perform trades of
booster configuration, booster propellants, and payload capability. Evaluate possible
cargo pod and propulsion module configurations to promote their reusability and reduce
operational costs. Define a personnel launch vehicle version of SDV which will use the
Shuttle orbiter to transport personnel.
11. Preliminary conceptual design of the personnel orbital transfer vehicle (POTV);
including configuration, mass estimates, crew accommodations, and performance
characteristics. Conduct a trade to assess utilization of common versus kitted POTVs
for alternative transportation routes. A single-stage POTV shall be assumed for all
k.J transfers since propellant resupply will be available at all terminals.
12. Preliminary conceptual design of the lunar transfer vehicle (LTV); including con-
figuration, mass estimates, crew accommodations, and performance characteristics.
Evaluate cargo capacity and accommodations needed to support delivery of lunar base
facilities and equipment during startup.
Expanded Study Tasks -- Material Processing
13. Define additional investigations and technology developments required to success-
fully process lunar minerals into SPS materials, parts and assemblies.
14. Make a more detailed comparative evaluation of the electrolytic, carbothermal
and other processes for the production of large quantities of oxygen from lunar
minerals.
7-5
15. Make a comparative evaluation of lunar and SMF based operations for:
a. Extraction of metals from lunar minerals.
b. Conversion of metal ingots, powder, etc., ink sheet, plate, wire, castings,
and other shapes and forms.
c. Purification of solar cell grade silicon.
16. Evaluate processes for extraction of gases and minor alloying elements from
lunar minerals and compare the advantages of lunar sources of these materials to
providing them from earth. (hydrogen, carbon, water, magnesium, chromium,
nickel, etc. )
17. Evaluate competitive processes for the preparation of solar cell grade silicon
from the metallurgical grade.
18. Perform a trade study of the space manufacturing facility; including general lay-
7 ¸
V
outs, material logistics and parts handling, mass, volume, power requirements, and
level of automation. Investigate alternative management approaches for the SMF.
Include concepts from independent ownership of discrete component manufacturing
facilities to a vertically integrated SM'F owned and operated by a single entity. Develop
economic comparison data and evaluate social/political ramifications of the alternatives.
Estimate the effect these various organizational approaches have on faciIity design.
Expanded Study Tasks -- Infrastructure
19. Lunar base power supply trade study. Evaluate alternative sources for electrical
power including nuclear Brayton, photovoltaic with conventional storage, and photovoltaic
with orbital mirrors for night operation. Determine equipment mass requirements and
operating characteristics. Select the best power supply' option and prepare a preliminary
conceptual design including configuration and mass data.
7-6
20. Preliminary conceptual design of modular habitats suitable for all LRU activity
locations. Develop building block modular concept consisting of earth delivered units
capable of housing from 60 to 1400 persons. Provide confi_ration, functional, and
support characteristics for each habitat space location.
Expanded Study Tasks -- System Level Trades
21. SMF location trade study. Compare possible locations for the space ms_nufacturing
facility of LRU Concept B to determine the effect that different locations have on steady
state operating material requirements. Possible locations include LS; 2:1 resonance
orbit, and geosynchronous orbit.
22. Lunar base trade study. CompAre various lunar surface base locations for LRU
Concepts B and C. Compare study state material logistics and power generating
requirements. Assess operating penalties associated with transfer of material from
these lunar bases to the SIVl'F.
23. Perform a second generation economic analysis to compare earth baseline and
updated LRU Concept B program costs. Incorporate results from the revised nominal
cost estimate (updated study Task No. 5), and results of the preceding expanded study
tasks. Special emphasis shall be directed toward evaluation of differences between
earth manufacturing costs and in-space manufacturing cost of SPS components. Develop
more detailed economic comparisons of the earth-based and space-based manufacturing
procedures.
New Study Tasks
24. Evaluate the use of bootstrapping during startup to reduce the facilities and the
equipment which must initially be delivered from earth. Determine the additional
startup time needed to accommodate a bootstrapped approach.
7w7
25. Evaluate a bootstrapped SPS production program and compare its schedule and
costs with a steady state production program. Perform a trade to determine what
k./
percentage of total SMF production capability is employed to increase SPS manufacturing
capacity as a function of bootstrapping rate.
26. Redesign of SPS for maximum compatibility with lunar-derived materials. Esti-
mate SPS mass and manufacturing facility requirements as a function of SPS LRU
percentage.
27. Evaluate what effect potential new developments on SPS design might have on the
utilization of lunar resources and the LRU material requirements threshold. Investigate
possible breakthroughs in solar cells (thermionic devices), DC-DC converters, and
Klystrons.
28. Determine the effect of employing asteroidal material for SPS production in addition
to or in place of lunar materials. Evaluate effects on $PS design, operating scenarios, V
startup procedures, and total program cost.
29. Evaluate the sensitivity of automation level on SMF zlesign, personnel requirements,
and LRU program cost. Determine if optimum automation level(s) for space manu-
facturing can be found, and if such an optimum exists, estimate its operating require-
ments.
30. Perform expanded economic assessments based on the revised economic analysis
and improved definition of LRU System Concept B. These assessments should include
a more detailed uncertainty analysis, cost payback analysis, and energy payback
analysis.
7.1.2 TECHNOLOGY STUDIES
1. Development of Ion-Electric Thrusters for Oxygen Propellant -- The most suitable
ion-electric vehicle propellant available in lunar resources is oxygen. Theoretical

7-8
performance of oxygen in ion thrusters is almost as good as argon, but extensive study
and testing is needed to develop thruster cathodes, screens and other components which
are suitably impervious to oxidation.
2. Development of In-Space Oxygen Liquefiers -- Lunar-derived oxygen must be
liquified to obtain a high density propellant with reasonable container requirements
and handling properties. Early development of a small-scale prototype for operation
in the zero-g space environment will also support a probable requirement for reliquefiers
in propellant depots.
3. Research on Mass Driver Catapult Linear Electroma=_netic Accelerator -- Expand
Princeton/MIT technology activities on mass driver prototypes. Continue development
and testing of the basic accelerator section and bucket design. Initiate work on payload
alignment stations and bucket loading equipment. Prepare a prototype for vacuum tests.
4. Research on Mass Catcher Material Stream Arresting Equipment -- Develop possible
candidate materials and bag configurations capable of arresting and retaining the stream
of lunar material delivered by the mass driver catapult. Develop simple test models
and conduct tests.
5. Research on Large Space (and Lunar Surface) Radl:ators -- Develop modular radiator
configuration which could utilize lunar materials for the radiator structure, and if
possible, the transport media. Conduct prototype tests to demonstrate performance
characteristics.
6. Research on Robotics Suitable for General Purpose Space Industrialization --
Adaptability of high technology industrial robots to the space environment. Investigation
of special problems associated with sensing, handling, and control in low-g environments.
7-9
7. Production of Solar Cells by Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) -- Thin crystals
(_200°A) of Si and various III-V, II-VI and IV-VI compounds and alloys can be grown
under precisely controlled conditions in a high vacuum (10-10 Torr). This will permlt
the production of large areas of efficientsolar cells from a small quantity of material
and lends itselfto production in a space environment. Develop and evaluate the IV[BE
process for the production of solar cells.
8. Research on Electrolysis of Silicates -- Investigate the electrolysis of metallic
oxysilicates (pla_oclase, pyroxene, olivine, etc. ) to recover oxygen and metallic
elements. Study should include selection of low-cost, long-lived anode and cathode
materials, means for the separation and recovery of individual elements such as Si,
Fe, A1, Mg and Ca, determination of the efficiency of the process and investigation of
factors which inhibit cell efficiency. This study should continue work performed by the
Bureau of Mines and reported in RI7587.
9. Production of Foam Glass from Lunar Type Silicates -- Investigate the production
of structural foam glass from lunar type silicates (anorthosite, basalt, etc.), evaluate
their mechanical and physical properties and fabricate and test sample structural
elements, develop means of joining metallic and foam glass structural elements.
Determine if fracture/strength characteristics can be improved by use of filaments
combined with the foamed glass. Evaluate various filaments including glass and carbon.
i0. Vacuum Distillationand Dissociation of Lunar Type Silicates -- Investigate the
recovery of oxygen and metallic elements from lunar type silicates by means of
vacuum distillationand dissociation and develop means for separation and recovery of
the individual elements.
11. Production of Fiberglass Filaments from Lunar Type Silicates -- Investigate the
production of fiberglass filaments from lunar type silicates in a vacuum and zero-g or
low-gravity environment. Characterize the mechanical and physical properties of the

7-10
fiberglass and fabricate and evaluate the performance of sample electrical insulation
and cylindrical containers made from the fiberglass.
12. Vapor Phase Deposition of Thick Sheet and Plate of Iron and Aluminum Alloys --
Develop the VPD process for the preparation of lmm to lcm thick sheet and plate of
iron and aluminum base materials, including pure Fe and A1, 18-8 type stainless
steel, and AI-Mg and Al-Si-Mg alloys. Characterize the mechanical, physical and
electrical properties of the WPD materials.
13. Vapor Deposition of Thin Silica Glass for Solar Cell Substrates and Covers --
Develop a process for the vapor phase deposition of 50 _m to 100 _m thick silica glass
sheet for application as solar cell substrates and covers. The sheet must be flat,
smooth and highly transparent and separable from the substrate on which it is deposited.
Dopants to enhance radiation resistance may be co-deposited with the glass.
%...,
7.2 TASK ASSESSMENT AND SCHEDULING
The forty-three recommended tasks described in Section 7.1 have been assessed to
define their relative importance toward obtaining an improved understanding of lunar
resources utilization. This assessment includes a relative ranking, recommended
schedule for accomplishment, and a preliminary cost estimate. Table 7-1 includes
this information for recommended system study tasks, and Table 7-2 identifies
recommended technology development programs. An explanation of the assessment
criteria employed in Tables 7-1 and 7-2 is given below.
• Relative Ranking. -- Numbers 1 through 4.
Number 1 denotes a task which has been identified as a direct result of work
performed by this contract, and performance of t/'ds new task will substantially
augment and improve our understanding of LRU's potential benefits. Number 4
indicates an interesting task with significantly lower influence on existing
study results.
7-Ii
Schedule -- A 3-year schedule for performance of initial system and technology
studies has been assumed. Number 1 indicates the task should be started
immediately, Number 2 denotes task initiation during the second year, etc.
Preliminary Cost Estimate -- These estimates assume a nominal level of
effort consistent with first or second generation definition studies. Some use-
ful data could be obtained with lower funding levels, and considerably expanded
understanding would probably result with increased funding levels.
Proposed schedules and funding profiles for system study and technology development
activities are shown in Figures 7-1 and 7-2, respectively. Individual tasks have been
assembled into compatible groupings to simplify scheduling. These groupings are also
defined in Figures 7-1 and 7-2.
7.3 LRU SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY EXPERIMENTS
Thirteen technology development tasks were identified in Subsection 7.1 as initial steps
V
toward the eventual attainment of LRU capability. These tasks all consist of laboratory
experiments to demonstrate processes and/or first-generation prototype hardware.
• Development of ion-electric thrusters using oxygen propellant
• Development of in-space oxygen liquefiers
• Research on mass driver catapult linear electromagmetic accelerator
• Research on mass catcher material stream arresting equipment
• Research on large space (and lunar surface) radiators
• Research on robotics suitable for general purpose space industrialization
• Production of solar cells by molecular beam epitaxy (MBE)
• Research on electrolysis of silicates
• Production of foam glass from lunar type silicates
• Vacuum distillation and dissociation of lunar type silicates
• Production of fiberglass filaments from lunar type silicates
• Vapor phase deposition of thick sheet and plate of iron and aluminum alloys
• Vapor deposition of thin silica glass for solar cell substrates and covers
7-12
Table 7-1. System Study Task Assessment,
Relative Schedule Preliminary
System Study Recommendations Ranking (Year) Cost Est (k_)
1) Personnel Launch With SDV 2 1 4
2) Lower AV for COTV XFERS 1 1 4

_i ¸ i-
3) Revise Lunar Power Facility 2 1 2
4) Revise Concept B Mat'l Reqts 1 1 8
5) Revise Nominal Cost Estimate 1 1 6
6) Revise Uncertainty Analysis 2 1 4
7) COTV Conceptual Design 3 2 12
8) Mass Driver Conceptual Design 3 2 16
9) Mass Catcher Trade Study 2 1 14
10) SDV Conceptual Design 3 2 20
11) POTV Conceptual Design 4 2 8
12) LTV Conceptual Design 4 2 10
13) Processing Technology Def. 2 1 16
14) Oxygen Production Options 3 2 10

k.4
15) SMF Versus Lunar Processing 2 1 8
16) Extraction of Minor Lunar Mat'ls 4 3 14
17) Silicon Refining Options 2 2 16
18) SMF Conceptual Design 3 3 48
19) Lunar Base Power Trade 2 1 12
20) Modular Habitat Design 4 3 16
21) SMF Location Trade 2 1 12
22) Lunar Base Location Trade 3 2 10
23) 2rid Generation Econ Analysis 3 2 2O
24) Bootstrapped Start-up 1 1 12
25) Bootstrapped SPS Production 3 2 32
26) SPS Redesign for Max LRU 3 2 "48
27) SPS Breakthrough Effects 2 2 8
28) Asteroidal Resources 4 3 48
29) SMF Sensitivity to Automation 3 3 32
30) Expanded Economic Assessments 1 1 2O
Total $490
7-13
Table 7-2. TechnologyDevelopment Task Assessment.
Relative Schedule Preliminary

Technolol_yStudyRecommendations Ranking (Year) Cost Est. (k._)
1) Oxygen Ion Electric Thrusters 1 2 1000
2) In-Space Oxygen Liquefiers 2 2 250
3) Mass Driver Accelerator 1 1 8O0
4) Mass Catcher 1 1 400
5) Large Space Radiators 3 2 300
6) Space Mfg Robotics 3 3 450
7) _%IBE Production of Solar Cells 2 2 750
8) Electrolysis of Silicates 1 1 500
9) Foamed Glass Production 2 1 350
10) Vac Distillation of Silicates 2 2 400
11) Fiberglass Prod From Silicates 2 1 150

V
12) Vapor Deposition of Metals 1 1 300
13) Vapor Deposition of Glass 2 2 350
Total $6;000
7-14
System Study Task Groupings Proposed Tasks kS Estimated Cosl
Personnel launch wdh SDV
Lower _V lot COTV Iransters
4
4
I
L
A. Updated system
study tasks
Revise lunar power lacilily
Revise Concepl B malls reqts
2
8
L $28k
Revise nominal cost estimale 6
I
Revise uncertainly analysis 4 J
3
Mass catcher trade study 14
a. Early expanded
Processing lechnolooy det t6 I
SMF versus lunar processing 8 I
trade studies |
Lunar base power trade 12 $94 k
& analyses SMF location trade 12 I
V Bootstrapped slartup
Expanded economic assessments
12
2O
I
J
COIV conceptual design 12

Mass driver conceptual design 16 I
C. Element conceptual SDV conceplual design 20 I
design & LRU cost POTV conceptual design $06 k
analysis update LTV conceptual design Ig
Lunar base location trade I0
2nd-generalion econ analysis 20
J
-%
Oxygen production options 10 I
D. Material processing Silicon refining options 16
i
& SPS Irade studies Bootstrapped SPS production 32 $114k
SPS rudesJ0n Ior max LRU 48

SPS breakthrough ellects
J
Extraction o| minor lunar malls
E. Expanded & SMF conceptual dusign "
48 I
new sludy tasks Modular habitat design t6 ' $lSUk
Asteroidal ro_ourcos
SMF sensitivity Io _,ulomallon 32
J
.., i i i i iii i iiii

1979 1980 1981
Task Groupings l 2 3 4 I 2 _ 1 _ _ ! 2 3 4
A. Updated System IIIII!1 IIIIIII

Study Tasks
B. Early Expanded Trade

IIIIII III1|11 IIIi_ Ii11111
Studies and Analyses
C. Element Conceptual Design

IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII illll
and LRU Cost Update
D. Material Processing and

IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIII IIIIIII
SPS Trade Studies
E. Expanded and New

IIIIIII II!111 III!111 Iii1111 iiiiiii
Study Tasks
Funding Requirements 6O
:. _%_%:.:
!ii_ii!!ii
i!i!iiiii
ESTIMATED 40
o;.;.;,;,;
QUARTERLY
, ,.,-,-, ,7o:.:.; °
COST ;-!.;!! ::::: : ......
i".*':','i ...................... iigii!iii
($1, 0oo) _:_:,:_:,: :i:i;_:i_i _:_:_:_:_
;:;:;:;:;
20 :_-_- _- :
i i!iii ii iiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiii !!iiiiiiii {iiiii!i!!

iiiiiii!i
::::;.; ; ::::!;_:::t ....iN .......
_:_:i:;:i:
°:':':':':I
i!i!iiiii!
,lj 2 3 j 4 I 4
I
197g 1980
i
Figure 7-1. Proposed Schedule for System Study Tasks.
7-15
Technology Development
Estimated Cost
Task Groupings Proposed tasks I kS
F. Mass driver calcher Mass driver accelerator 800 I

$1,200 k
technology developmenl Mass catcher 400 J
G.
Early processing & mfg Electrolysis of silicates 500 "_
technology
H. Oxygen
development
ion electric
Foamed glass production
Fiberglass prod from silicales
Vapor deposilion
Oxygen
of metals
Ion electric thrusters

350
150
300
1000
J $1,300
$ t,000
k
k
Ihrusler development
I. Propellant production In-space oxygen liquefiers 250 1

$ 550 k
technology development Large space radiators 300 J
J, Subsequent process & mfg MBE production of solar cells 750 I
technology development Vac distillation
Vapor
of silicates
deposition of glass
400
350
I $1,500 k
K° Automaled processes Space mlg robotics 450 $ 450 k

development
1979 1980 1981

m-- , , ,|
Task Groupings
I 2 31_ L 513 4 1 2 314

F. Mass Driver/Catcher
IIIIIIilIlUlII IIII!11 Iii1111 IIIIii111111111
G. Early Processing/_Ifg
Itlllltllllllllilllllll IIlllllIillllli
H. Oxygen Ion Electric Illllllillillil:lllllil Illllllllllllllllllllll

Thruster Development
I. Propellant Production IllllllllllllllJllillll Illllll

J. Subsequent Process/'blfg Illllllllilllll Illllllllllllllllllllll Ilillll

K. Automated Processes Illllltllltltllllllllllllllllll

and Mfg Development
Funding Requirements 800
ii_i!iii!i!
iiii!iiiiiiii!!ii!_i!iii_
r •
600
EsTnV[ATED _,,,_,,,,,,
iiiiiiii!ii
iiiiii!iiiil
iiiii!iiiii
_,_,_,_,
QUARTERLY
400
--- :._:._:._:Ji:
!i!_ii!i!ii
;;L_!i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiill
iii!i!i!iiil
i_iiiiiiii _-_:_,_:_:
::;:;:::;::._
COST !iiiiiii!;i!!iiiili!ili_
Hiiiiiiiii
ii',iiiiiiiii
_i_iiiii_!i_ili!iiiiiill
=::::
($1,000)
::iiii_i_i_!
!;!i!!!;ili
iiiiiii;ii_i
i!iii_i_i_i
i_!ii_i_!_!::l_i
!ii !__ii!iiii!i!i
iiii!iiiiiili_i_i_;_i_i:i_i_iiiiii
200
:,iiii_i_!i
iiiiiiii!i;iiiiii;!iii
iii;i;i;i;!i;iiiii;iiii_i_i_i_i_;_iii!iiiiiiiii!ii;ili;i;iIi!!
?.'[i;i;i;ill ;i:i:_:i:i:i
ii;iii;i;ii
0
iii!_i!iil
ii_!i!iiiil
i!!!_iii_i!!
;i;i!i_!ii!
!iiiii_iiil;_;;;.:_-,-_iiiii;iii!iii
i;i;_iiiiiii,_:_-_:_:_:_:
i;!;ii!!i!i
! 2 3 ,i 1 2 3 4 l i 2 3 4
1979 1980 1981
Figure 7-2. Proposed Schedule for Technology Development Tasks. %J

7-16
All these early conceptual evaluations of space processes or space system performance
would be conducted in vacuum chambers. Short duration low-g testing could be
accomplished via droptower or on-board a KC-135 aircraft. Eventually, however,
many preferred LRU processing and manufacturing techniques will require demon-
st-ration in their expected operating environment. These tests would be accomplished
via the space shuttle, either as special dedicated experiments or in conjunction with
Spacelab or a science applications platform. The LRU related technology areas which
at this time appear to require verification with space experiments are listed in Table
7-3.
Table 7-3. LRU Shuttle Technology Experiments.
• Vapor deposition of aluminum & iron on a molybdenum strip

Perform vacuum deposition in zero-g
Demonstrate metal separation from Mo sheet following deposition
• Melting & casting of aluminum, Iron & sendust (85% Fe - 10% Si - 5% AI)
1 Perform casting at zero-g & low controlled g
i
Demonstrate beth permanent metal mold & sand-plaster mold casting

• Reacting SiO2 to form high-purity silica glass
Manufacture of thin silica sheet & glass filaments
• Manufacturing of foamed glass elements from simulated native lunar glass,

including structural shapes & waveguide sections
• Eiectroplating aluminum with copper in zero-g
• Vapor depositions of aluminum on silicon wafers through maskant
• Liquefaction of oxygen in zero-g & 1/6 g
7-17
REVIEWER CONTRIBUTIONS
At the request of NASA's Johnson Space Center, the Convair Division of General
Dynamics Corporation arranged for a group of independent experts to perform critical
review of work performed under Contract NAS9-15560, "Lunar Resources Utilization
for Space Construction." These experts consisted of nationally recognized authorities
on lunar materials and/or space industrialization and were the originators of many
concepts considered during the study. The primary purpose of this group was to
assure that the concepts and systems defined, evaluated and compared represented
the best current proposals and were treated objectively.
The following individuals were retained by General Dynamics to perform the study
technical review function:
Dr. Jim Arnold - University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California
Gerald Driggers - Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Alabama
Dr. Art Dula - Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp, Houston, Texas
Dr. John Freeman - Rice University, Houston, Texas
Dr. Gerry O'Neill - Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
These reviewers were encouraged to provide independent assessment of study concept
definitions, comparative evaluation techniques and results. Copies of study monthly
reports were sent to reviewers, and their comments and suggestions contributed to
subsequent study activities. Reviewers had an 80% attendance at the contract mid-
term and final presentations, where they participated in informal discussions with
study personnel, and provided critical assessment of work performed.

v
", j
8-1
Each reviewer was requested to submit a contribution for the study final report. These
contributions have been compiled in this section. Comments were solicited in three
areas:
Brief statement of significant contributions reviewers thought were made by this
study toward improved understanding of lunar resource utilization. Specifically
interested in identifying approaches, data, evaluation techniques or results that
seem especially worthwhile.
Statement identifying the study approach, constraints, assumptions, or data which
reviewers felt might limit the usefulness or restrict the applicability of study
results. This statement should identify the offending parameter(s) and indicate
the alternatives which should be considered to obtain improved results. These
comments will be especially constructive if they can be oriented toward specific
study follow--on recommendations.
A study related treatise expounding on each reviewer's specific area(s) of interest.
This can be an expanded discussion of alternative study approaches from the pre-
ceding paragraph. This section provided each reviewer the opportunity to intro-
duce new or unusual ideas for possible consideration in follow-on activities.
Reviewer contributions have been organized into six subsections. The first subsection,
by way of introduction, includes brief resumes and background information for each
reviewer. This is followed by a separate subsection containing each reviewer's
comments. Comment references all pertain to this volume (Volume II) of the final
report unless specifically noted otherwise. In some instances, editorial comments
have been included by the study manager. These are contained in parentheses.
8.1 REVIEWER RESUMES
Abbreviated resumes for each of the five study technical reviewers are contained in
this subsection.
8-2
DR. JAMES R. ARNOLD
i
i Professional
i ....
Professor of Chemistry
t_........ Position: University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California 92093
Education: A.B., Princeton University, 1943

M.A., Princeton University, 194S
Ph.D. Chemistry, Princeton University, 1946
Experience: During his graduate work at Princeton University, Dr. Arnold
was associated with the Manhattan (atomic bomb) Project for two years.
On completing his doctorate training, Arnold went to the'University of Chicago as a
postdoctorate Fellow in its newly formed Institute for Nuclear Studies. In 1947 he
moved to Harvard University as a National Research Fellow. In 1948 he returned to
the University of Chicago to begin work with W. F. Libby in the development of radio-
carbon dating, after which he became a member of the faculty there. In 1955 Arnold
Joined the chemistry department of Princeton University. His appointment as an
Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of California, San Diego began in
1958 and he was appointed Professor and first chairman of the Department of Chemistry
in 1960.
In the 1950's he was one of the developers of the liquid scintillation spectrometer for
C14 and H3: He discovered the cosmic-ray-produced Be 7 (53-day) and Be 10
(2.5 million year) isotopes in nature, and studied their distribution in the natural
environment.
Since 1960 his work has been mainly on cosmic-ray products in meteorites and in
lunar samples. With D. Lal, M. Honda, J. Shedlovsky and others he demonstrated
the approximate constancy of the cosmic ray flux over periods up to millions of years.
This work has also been applied to the history of meteorites in the solar system, and
has been accompanied by theoretical studies on the origin of these objects.
8-3
He and his coworkers have been active in lunar sample studies since Apollo 11.
Their work has shown that the rate of emission of high energy particles in solar
flares has been approximately constant over millions of years. With A. E. Metzger
and others he conducted a gamma ray mapping experiment on Apollo 15 and 16; they
found a remarkable concentration of the heat-producing radioactive elements in the
areas of Oceanus Procellarum and Mare Imbrium.
In 1966-68 he served on the International Technical Cooperation and Assistance Panel
of the President's Science Advisory Committee, under the chairmanship of Dr. Herbert
York. He was a member of the Space Science Board of the National Academy from
1971 to 1974. He is now a member of the Academy's Committee on Science and Public
Policy.
Arnold is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
and the American Chemical Society. He was elected to the National Academy of
Sciences in 1964 and was a recipient of the Atomic Energy Commission's
E. O. Lawrence Award in 1968. In 1969 he was elected to the American Academy of
Arts and Sciences. He studied in India under a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1972-73.
He was honored by NASA in 1971 with its Group Achievement Award for his lunar
orbital experiments and again in 1972 with its medal for Exceptional Scientific
Achievement.
Dr. Arnold has published 85 technical papers and articles during the past 33 years.
MR. GERALD W. DRIGGERS
Professional Section Head, Applied Thermal Section

Position: Southern Research Institute
Birmingham, Alabama 35215
Education: Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama: September 1962 to

March 1968. (Graduated with Bachelor of Science in Aerospace
L _
Engineering. )
8-4
Auburn University: March 1973 to June 1974+ (Master of Science
in Aerospace Engineering. )
University of Alabama in Birmingham: September 1974 to Present+

Additional study in Math and Bio-Engineering°
!!!!_ Experience:
July 1978 - Present
Section Head, Applied Thermal Section, Southern Research Institute, Birmingham,
Alabama. Directs application of experimental capabilities and evaluation of thermal
and environmental effects on material properties. Planning and managing new appli-
cations of materials research capabilities to weapon systems, new energy sources
and space related requirements.
June 1977- July 1978
Aerospace Engineer, Science Applications, Incorporated (SAI), Huntsville, Alabama.
Managing and participating in studies of: space industrialization; processing and
manufacturing in space; space technology applications; and alternative energy sources,
both ground and space based.
July 1974 - June 1977
Research Engineer, Southern Research Institute, Birmingham, Alabama. Speciali-
zation in evaluation of materials at ele_'ated temperatures, system design support
and space systems studies.
Previous experience included a teaching assistantship and research while obtaining
his masters degree, and as an Aerospace Systems Analyst for the United States Air
Force Space and Missile Systems Organization.
Mr. Driggers is an active member of several technical societies (including AIAA
and A.AS) and defense associates, and participates in technical committee work and
public relations activities supporting science and technology.
He has 21 publications and presentations, including the following which are associat-
ed with space industrialization or the utilization of nonterrestrial materials:
8-5
• "A Baseline L8 Construction Station". Princeton University Conference on Space
Manufacturing Facilities, May 7-9, 1975.
• "Defining Shuttle and Tug Requirements for Large Space Facility Construction."
Presented at Twenty-first Annual Meeting of AAS, August 26-28, 1975.
• 'rlndustry in Space; The Dawning Prospects". Bulletin of the Southern Research
Institute Vol. XXXLX, No. 1, Summer 1976.
• "Establishment of a Space Manufacturing Facility", with Jon Newman AIAA
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, Vol. 57, 1977.
• "A Factory Concept for Processing and Manufacturing with Lunar Materials."
AIAA Paper 77-538, Third Princeton/AIAA Conference on Space Manufacturing,
May 9-12, 1977.
• "Systems Analysis of a Potential Space Manufacturing Facility". AIAA Paper
77-554, Third Princeton/AIAA Conference on Space Manufacturing May 9-12, 1977.
• "Systems Analysis of Space Manufacturing From Nonterrestrial Materials." IAF
Paper 77-72, XXVIIIth Congress of the International Astronautical Federation,

V
Prague, Czechoslovakia, September 25- October 1, 1977.
DR. ARTHUR I_I.DULA
Professional Technological Lawyer

Position: Butler, Binion, Rice, Cook & Knapp
• 1100 Esperson Building
Adjunct Associate Professor of Law

Bates College of Law
University of Houston
Courses Taught: Environmental Law and Policy

Federal Jurisdiction, Insurance,
Comparative Law and Ethics
Consultant: Medical Physics

University of Texas System Cancer Center
M. D. Anderson Hospital
Houston, Texas
8-6
Education: Juris Doctor with honors - May 1975
Tulane University School of Law
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118
Graduate Study in Theoretical Inorganic Chemistry

Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, Georgia
B.S. 1970 - Chemistry Minor: Mathematics

Eastern New Mexico University
Portales, New Mexico 88130
Experience: Active in space law and space industrialization legal activities
for the past two years. Served as program chairman for related symposiums and
has published and lectured extensively. Dr. Dula is a member of fifteen legal,
technical and philanthropic organizations including the American Bar Association,
AIAA, British Interplanetary Society, IEEE, International Institute of Space Law,
and the American Chemical Society.
His 25 presentations and publications include:
• "Space Law for Business Planners", Journal of Contemporary Business, University
of Washington, Winter 1978.
• 'qVIicrowave Radiation", Jurimetrics Journal., American BarAssociation, Summer
1978, Volume 18, No. 4.
• "How Does Industry View Space Industrialization?", Aeronautics and Astronautics_
May 1977, p. 44.
• "Frontier Law- The Law of Outer Space", University of Houston Alumni Magazine,
A_ertus Magnus, January 1977 (reprinted in The Legal Advocate, July and August
1977).
• "Legal and Economic Prerequisites to Space Industrialization", Proceedings of
the 19th Colloquium_ International Institute of Space Law, I.A.F., Anaheim,
October 1976.
• "Management of Inter and Third Party Liability for Routine Space Shuttle Operations",
Drake Law Re viewt Insurance Law Annual, Fall 1977.
• "Legal Issues Raised by the Use of Extraterrestrial Resources", University of
Houston, Law Re_ew_ 1978.
8-7
DR. JOHN W. FREEMAN
Professional Director, Space Solar Power Research Program and Professor of

Position: " Space Physics and Astronomy, Rice University.
Courses Taught: Introduction to Space Science - The Origin and Evolution of the
Solar System - Plasma Physics - Freshman and Sophomore Physics
Labs - Experimental Methods of Space Physics and Astronomy.
Consultant, NASA
Education: B.S. - Physics, Beloit College, Beloit, Wisconsin, 1957

M.S. - Physics, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1961
Ph.D. - Physics, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1963
Physics Dissertations:
-- A Satellite Borne Cadmium Sulfide Total Corpusular Energy

Detector.
-- The Morphology of the Electron Zone and Near the Magneto-

c spheric Boundary as Observed by Explorer 12. (Under
James A. Van Allen).
Experience: Since September 1977 Professor Freeman has served as Director
of the Rice University Space Solar Power Research Program. This program involves %,J
research in seven (7) areas related to the feasibility of the SPS concept including:
1. SPS cost analysis
2. Rectenna siting
3. Microwave bioeffects
4. Space plasma effects on the SPS
_. Microwave beam ionsophere interactions
6. Rectenna lightning and severe weather protection
7. Alternate solar energy conversion devices
Professor Freeman is Principle Investigator of a NASA contract to evaluate the
effects of the space environment on the solar Dower satellite. He is also involved
in directing research on the feasibility of offshore rectennas for SPS and the develop-
ment of the photoklystron, an A. C. or R.F. solar cell.
8-8
Specialized Research Areas:
• Measurement of Low-Energy Ions in the Magnetosphere and Near the Lunar Surface
• The Origin of the Solar System
• The Electric Potential of the Lunar Surface
Space Projects:
• Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, Suprathermal Ion Detector, Principal
In4estigator
Application Technology Satellite, Suprathermal Ion Detector, Principal Investigator
Co-Investigator for numerous trapped radiation satellite experiments.
He has approximately fifty publications in Scientific and Technical Journals.
DR. GERARD K. O'NEILL
Professional Professor of Physics, Princeton University

Position:
Education: B.S. - Physics, Swarthmore College, 1950

Ph.D. -Physics, Cornell University, 1954
Experience: Dr. O'Neill went to Princeton University in 1954 as an Instructor
and became a Professor in 1965. His main research area is high-energy particle
Physics. In 1956 he ir_ver_ed the storage-ring technique for colliding particle beams,
a method which is now the basis for nearly every new high-energy machine. His
studies on the humanization of space began in 1969 as a result of undergraduate
teaching at Princeton, and were first published in 1974.
Dr. O'Neill was selected by the editors of Aviation Week as one of the Anm ricans who
contributed most to the development of the Aerospace field in the year 1975. In the
1976--77 academic year, while on sabbatical leave from Princeton, he was visiting
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as the Jerome Clarke Hunsaker Professor
of Aerospace.
Contributions to the space industrialization concept by G. K. O'Neill include:
8-9
• Concept of utilization of lunar resources within present technology limits for manu-
facturing in space on substantial scale (_'The Colonization of Space," Physics Today,
September 1974).
• Mass-driver concept with supporting calculations ("The Colonization of Space,"
Physics Today, September 1974).
• Utility of lunar materials for construction in space of SPS ("The Colonization of
Space," Physics Today, September 1974; "Space Colonies and Energy Supply to the
Earth," Science_ December 5, 1975).
• Directed 1976 NASA Study on "Space-Based Manufacturing from Non-Terrestrial
Materials" (.S_ace-Based Manufacturing from Non-terrestrial Materials Ted.
G. K. O'Neill and B. O'Leary, Vol. 57 in Progress in Astronautics and Aero-
nautics, AIAA, New York, 1977).
• Directed 1977 NASA Study on "Space Manufacturing and Space Settlements" (NASA
SP-428, in press).
• Principle Investigator for NASA grants studying non-terrestrial materials utiliza-
tion and developing working models of mass-driver.
• Chairman, USRA Task Group on Power from Space.
• Chairman, Organizing Committees for 1974, 1975, 1977, 1979 Princeton/AIAA
Conferences on Space Manufacturing/Space Se{tlements.
• Congressional Testimony in regard to space manufacturing.
• Award-winning book, The High Frontier, and extensive lecturing.
8.2 DR. ARNOLD'S COMMENTS
8.2.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study
The study of future developments as far-reaching as the use of lunar materials for
human benefit is a difficult enterprise, as I know from experience. If a study clari-
fies some previously obscure points, and suggests some new and promising directions,
it achieves all that can be expected. The present study has met this standard very well.
8-10
f_
It must be considered as part of an ongoing process. Its last study task, reported in
Section 7 concludes, quite appropriately, with a listof recommended tasks. I will
discuss these at the end of my remarks.
8. 2.2 Assessment of Study Usefulness and Applicability
The first general point I wish to make has to do with the starting assumptions. I am
happy with all but two of them. There is no need to underline areas of agreement;
these are the two exceptions,
First I find the restriction of assumed lunar resources to highland soil (Section 2,
Guideline 6) unrealistic. As stated it is not quite rigid, and the study has interpreted
it with some flexibility. Still a broader and more realistic charge would have helped.
It is taken for granted in other recent studies that both mare and highland material
should be available at a mining site. Not only mare-highland boundary sites (like
Taurus-Littrow), but also zones of large crater ejecta from below mare layers pro-
vide candidates -- there is no shortage. A serious resource survey could be confi-
dently expected to show highland-mare-KREEP province junctions, and also the
presence of unusual materials of special value. There are arguments against the
presence on the moon of rich mines of copper or tin, for example. But there are no
arguments against the presence of enrichments of 10-100 times in interesting elements.
Indeed for Ti we know they exist. We should plan for success in areas like this. The
downplaying of this aspect shows itself in Figure 6-1 on page 6-3 of Section 6. The
effect of resource surveys on economics justifies earlier and greater emphasis.
Second, I find myself in disagreement with the concentration on SPS as the model pro-
duct for lunar resource utilization. Indeed, at the end the authors themselves may be
coming around to this. Some very early study threshold examples suggested an
economic crossover to LRU at the point of perhaps 50-150 SPS units manufactured.
The study final results, reported in Section 5 show nominal crossover in the range of
3-5 units, and conceivably as low as one unit. Thus the study has strengthened the
8-11
case that other smaller space manufacturing activities may justify small-scale, but
immensely helpful, early investments in lunar mining and space manufacturing
facilities. There are further points in this direction to be made, which rest on
recent thinking by O'Neill, Criswell and others (see below). In any case I believe
future studies should pay more attention to such smaller (but still perhaps quite
large) projects as first steps in LRU. The idea of bootstrapping is central here.
I think we can take it that a project cost dominated by R&D at the crossover point
is not in satisfactory shape. This may happen necessarily in military or national
prestige projects (Apollo), but does not seem proper for an economically motivated
one (unless the crossover is very early indeed).
8.2.3 Expanded Comments Concerning Dr. Arnold's Specific Areas of Interest
Cosmic-ray Shielding. There is some apparently conflicting information in the dis-
cussion and graphs in Section 4.5, pages 4-111 through 4-118. There is confusion
about solar flare shielding in the report, and also in reality. As an engineering pro-
blem the flare of February 1956 was by far the worst in the record. How often do
such flares occur? Can they be substantially worse7 This is a research topic, and
there may be some other approaches beyond waiting another 100-1000 years.
Fraction of Lunar Materials Utilized for Product Construction. The discussion is
quire reasonable. One guess is that in a real project it will pass 50% quickly, and
95% much later.
Concepts B, C and D. Early in the study, Concept B acquired and maintained a lead
over the others. I believe this is correct. However, the following considerations may
have some influence on the implementation of this concept.
8-12
Processing on the Moon. The study pronounces against manufacturing end products,
especially fragile and low-density materla/s, on the moon. These arguments do not
apply to first-stage processing. Thus the magnetic enrichment of Fe in lunar soil,
and electrostatic or other enrichment of other feedstocks, will obviously raise the
value of ejected materials without substantial effect on transport costs. It may well
be that fabrication of plate, coatings, or other industrial feedstocks will best be done on
the moon for the same reason, and for others (see below).
Separation in Situ. Some special features of the lunar environment shauld be remember-
ed. The presence everywhere of a regolith at least meters in depth, and its very low
o
thermal conductivity in vacuum, suggest some changes from terres.tri.aI practice. For
one thing, molten lunar soil or rock may be self-contained without firebrick walls or
special furnace design. A solid shell will form around the edge of the molten zone;
it will tend to heal itself on cracking. Electrolyzed metal should be easily localized
and recovered in such a system. Evolved solar wind gas and 0 2 recovery may be more
of a problem.
In such a system, metals like Mg and A1, and even other materials might best be
isolated by volatilization. The large area of condensing surface required at low pres-
sure is tolerable, if the surface is simple enough.
Electrolysis of Soil. This is a very attractive idea in principle, especially when con-
trasted with systems using chlorides or fluorides; however, the work performed prior
to the LRU study is not really applicable. The BuMines study used more fluoride per
gram recovered product, as flux, than one could possibly tolerate. Anode materials
are one essential area of research: flux-flee electrolysis is another. ReCent work
in this area by Lindstrom and Haskin (Reference 1) is an excellent beginning.
One idea, promising on paper, is to use sulfate flux, Na2SO 4 or NaHSO4, for lowering
the melting temperature. Phosphates are another possibility. If Na, S, P minerals
8-13
can be concentrated electrostatically or otherwise, they are available locally.
I know of no part of the field where experimental work is more needed.
Heat Insulation of Lunar Soil. This suggests many other applications. In particular
one can store heat in the lunar day, by heating large rocks using crude solar con-
centrators, or by melting lunar soil. A cover of 10 cm of soil will retain this heat
through the lunar night. In a symmetric way, lunar cold can be accumulated at night
and stored for daytime use. The temperature difference can be a source of power,
heating and cooling of living spaces, etc. There may be no need for more technical-
ly advanced means, like power cables along latitude lines or lunar SPS's.
Lunar Volatiles. Rich resources may exist in polar shadowed regions (see my pre-
print T_1ce in the Lunar Polar Regions"). One must not count on a resource not yet
discovered. Still I believe this strengthens the case for an early lunar resource survey
satellite (LPO, POI_, etc.).
Recovery of lunar sulfur seems straightforward. Nitrogen can probably be supplied
as needed from implanted solar wind gas in lunar soil. Carbon and hydrogen are
progressively more questionable, but should at least be recovered as byproducts
wherever feasible.
Estimated H20 Requirements. Subsection 4. 4.8, page 4-84 contains the first effort
ever, to my knowledge, to estimate industrial H20 requirements. As such, it is a
major contribution, even in its present rough form. It should be made more visible.
It is also gratifying that the estimates come out so modest The processes chosen
in this study are probably superior in this respect, although we cannot be sure.
With proper re-

The requirements of H20 for human use are easier to estimate.
cycling they are lower than industrial requirements.
8-14
If there is ice at the lunar poles one can consider relaxing the limits, with signifl-
canteconomic benefit. Agriculture is the next area to study for water demand. The
University of Arizona's closed greenhouse systems for vegetable culture in arid lands
provide a good benchmark.
The Food Loop. The report assumes food is provided from earth. This is properly
conservative at the start, but unrealistic later. The propects for agriculture either in
space or on the moon are good. Also I cannot believe that people will live without green
plants -- this primitive urge can be harnessed.
Use of Lunar Glass. This has been well discussed, most recently by McKenzie in
connection with the Criswell study. It must not be forgotten that the glass from
lunar soil is very dark, black in any thickness, and in the basaltic range may devitri-
fy (crystallize) all too early. Enrichment of SiO 2 and some additions of alkali would
help.
On the other side, a special metal like tin may not be necessary for the float process
on the moon or in space. Without corrosive gases, Fe or even Ti may serve, or A1
if its volatility is not a problem.
Silica Glass. In Appendix D page D-21 of Volume III, MacKenzie is the authority for
the statement that fused SiO 2 may be a practical general purpose glass. I am sur-
prised. "Fused quartz r' is such a premium product now that the very elaborate
Vycor process with borates produces a much lower-priced product.
Foamed Glass. This material is emphasized, especially in Subsection 4_ 4.4, page
4-63. Its chief use is in SI_S structural elements. For insulating purposes, lunar
soil, compressed or lightly fused if necessary, can suffice. For pipes cast basalt
kj (Criswell) may be superior.
8-15
0 2 as COTV Propellant. This idea is another of the major contributions of the study.
I believe it has much to commend it, if a highly efficient process for large-scale lunar
O 2 recovery can be developed. If not, the problem of high-speed solid ejecta from a
mass driver engine is not quite as difficult as portrayed. If the quantum of ejected
-9
material is very small -- say I0 g or less -- it is much less dangerous. Alternative-
ly, one might plan to eject large lumps, say > 1 kg or even more; then the probability
of collision drops sharply.
Chemical Processing Systems. So far four different studies of the extractive stage
have yielded four different major separation processes: carbochlorination, carbo-
thermal (methane reduction), fluoride reactions, and direct electrolysis. This is
very encouraging -- when possibilities abound the technology is young. On broad
grounds I favor the electrolysis system proposed here, but none of us delude our-
selves that it is a sure thing, and better options may still exist.
I would strongly recommend widening the circle or workers in this area. Academic
experts in extractive metallurgy are few, but they exist. This is a great area for
student effort. Industrial and government technologists are more numerous, and still
largely untapped_
Brian _inner, Lee Silver and others have argued that a revitalization of these arts
in terrestrial practice is necessary and inevitable. Their ideas should be sought as
to how to combine efforts.
Alloying Elements. For steel Mn is no problem; the Fe/Mn ratio in lunar soil is
about right. But Si, Ti, A1 and Mg are likely to be much more available than more
familiar alloying elements for specialty steels. Alloys using St are already well
known for magnetic use and chemical resistance (furiron). More study of alloys with
these elements may be warranted.
8-16
Zone-refining. Another part of the undeveloped folklore of the field is the attractive-
ness of zone-refining as a unit process for purification in 1/6 g or micro-g environ-
ments, using solar heat. There should be a serious look.
Titanium. This element is widely used, and widely cursed, in the aerospace industry.
The production of TI and Ti alloy parts on earth is very difficult, and prices reflect
the fact. A space or lunar environment may make it much easier (free vacuum, low
or zero g). If so, and if downward transport can be made cheap, this may be one of
the first large-scale space industries. Lunar ilmenite is in essentially infinite
supply.
Vapor Deposited Steel Plate. I was startled to encounter this idea in Subsection 4.4.4,
pages 4-57 through 4-63 (see Table 4-14, p. 4-61)o Discussions with Abe Hurlich
make it clear that he has some real basis to believe it is practical and economic for
space utilization. If this is true, it creates great possibilities for vapor deposition
as a unit process. One can develop the ideas of Henson and Drexler for composites,
and even proceed to direct fabrication of parts of more complex shape, using the
electron beam for removal as well as deposition. This is an excellent area for micro-
processor control.
Power R¢qul'rements for Living. In subsection 4. S. 2, page 4-128, power requirements
per person on the lunar base are estimated at 9 kW. It is not clear whether this is
capacity or average power. If the latter, it is absurdly high. Other economic drives
will tend to lower area/person. Heating requirements will be very small and pre-
dictable. The mean should be an order of magnitude lower, unless power is very
cheap. (9 kW/person was assumed for peak power u this is ~3 times that available
in Skylab. Ed. )
Terrestrial Na2___ 4. This is listed in Table 4-23 on page 4-88. It would be smarter
to bring terrestrial NaC1, since C12 and HC1 are bound to be useful, and to use lunar
8-17
sulfur for the sulfates. Terrestrial Cu could also be further substituted by lunar A1.
Asteroidal Resources. These are ignored entirely. It depends on the time scale
whether this is justified. If resource utilization on a large scale is thirty years or more
ahead, this is a mistake in my view (see below); in the 20-30 year period it is debatable.
Here I will only remind readers that earth approaching asteroids are recoverable by
known means, and that some of them surely contain very large amounts of Fe-Ni-Co
metal, and of volatiles including H20 and organic matter.
Returning Product to Earth. The study assumes, as have previous ones, that the cost
of bringing material down to the earth will be comparable to the costs of bringing it up.
This may not be so, as Gaffey and McCord, and Criswell, have noted. One might well
use low-cost heat shields or other means, to reduce this cost drastically, to the level
of manufacturing costs on earth. This is a key point; it might make all the difference
in expanding the range of potential products of space manufacture.
Conclusions. I come now to a discussion focussed on the economic conclusions of the
report and some related matters including the list of future tasks. I need hardly say
that I am not an economist.
In the end there are two complementary statements. The front of the coin says "cross-
over is probably early -- perhaps about at the fourth SPS." The back reads 'rut the
uncertainties are so great that we cannot be sure when, or even if, crossover will
occur." With the addition that the range of uncertainty also includes crossover at the
firs___/t
unit, I must agree. However, I believe a number of factors must be mentioned on
the encouraging side. The present assumption that an existing technology, such as
use of Tyco ribbon-machines for growing Si, known to all to be difficult __nd clumsy,
will be used in space, is surely conservative. The whole history of solid state
materials, including solar cell manufacture, is one of rising yields, rapid process
8-18
development, and dropping costs. Any substantial reduction in the cost of any one
component, however, even a tenfold drop in Si cell manufacturing cost, would
probably not produce a large improvement, because this is no longer the sole driver.
Still it will have significant effects, especially for earlier, smaller-scale industrial
processing. I believe it can be counted on.
The M.I.T. study suggests that space transportation costs, using the present STS
system, can be sharply reduced by increasing the duty cycle. I cannot evaluate this,
but I must believe that the next generation of lift vehicles will incorporate advances
over STS comparable to the Jump from the Saturn vehicles to the Shuttle. This is
another example of the general power of the learning curve.
An even more important breakthrough is now beginning in the area of "smart machines":
industrial robots and teleoperators. The microprocessor revolution is well aduanced,
but it is just beginning to move into manufacturing. The most imme diate effect will be
a sharp reduction -- a factor of 2 up to an order of magnitude -- in the personl_el
requirements for space processing. Full time workers will progressively give way to
a smaller number of maintenance engineers visiting periodically or at need.
All these factors, and other aspects of a general advance in technology on earth and
in space, are likely to play a cumulative role. Furthermore, if one attempts the
exercise of predicting the commereial airline system of the 1970's, at the time of
the DC-3, one sees that the largest role on this time scale is played by the unexpected,
in this case the jet engine, along with cumulative small advances in many technologies,
The case is strong that more rapid advances are foreseeable now.
One last work on future tasks. The discussion above suggests that I give some items
on your list special emphasis, and would add a few others. I would especially push
task 29 (page 7-8) and task 8 (page 7-10). I would also note that while some, even
many, of these tasks could reasonably be undertaken by the present Convair group,
8-19
with outside support in some cases, others might best be done elsewhere. I'd be
glad to discuss specific suggestions at an appropriate time.
References
Lindstrom, D. J., and Haskin, L. A., "Electrochemistry of Lunar Rocks," Depart-
ment of Earth and Planetary Sciences and McDonnell Center for Space Sciences,
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130. Paper No. 79-1380, 4th Princeton
AIAA Conference on Space Manufacturing, May 1979.
8. 3 MR. DRIGGERS' COMMENTS
8.3.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study
The major contributions of this study can be summarized as follows:
a. A systematic study effort of scale sufficient to lend credibility to the results was
expended to examine the SPS manufacturing options. This took the concept of LRU
from the domain of a few loosely coordinated investigators into that of the system-
atic world of aerospace. The study was accomplished impartially and in a pro-
fessional manner. Much more data was generated and analyzed than is typical for
a study of this size. The study manager is to be congratulated on his efficiency.
All of these contributed to the worth and credibility of the output.
b. A base of information and data on LRU has been assembled into one set of volumes
and made readily available to potential investigators. Information previously
scattered through many references, very obscure or completely non-existent is now
compiled and organized. Although not totally exhaustive, the data bank represent-
ed by the study reports will prove an invaluable starting point.
c. In the examination and synthesis of the data into coherent programs for comparison
lies the most significant contribution of this study. The results show that any
decision to pursue a solar power satellite program demonstration must logically
include the LRU concept. Based on the results of this study, there appears to
%.J
be no bases in logic for ig,noring the LRU option. Indeed, the contrary seems
8-2O
m
quite correct.
8.3.2 Evaluation of Study Results; Criticisms
The major shortcomings I have noted in the study are as follows:
a. The potential for LRU in space industrialization on a scale somewhat less than that
of an SPS program was not properly examined owing to certain assumptions made.
Thus, data relative to much smaller lunar and space operations was not developed.
Using output from this study and other sources, estimates of mass and cost were
made for much smaller programs and the paper included in subsection 8.3.3 was
prepared. The minimum threshold quoted in this (the GD/C) study are about 100
times greater than those indicated by the subsection 8.3.3 paper due to the assump--
tions used°
b. Bootstrapping was not considered in this study. The ability of a smaller factory
to make many things needed to expand to greater capacity can have significant cost
impact, especially in transportation. For example, it seems quite likely that it is
economically viable to use a small plant capable of manufacturing solar blankets to
build the large power supplies required for full scale production. A good deal of
careful thought and ingenuity needs to be expended in this area.
8.3.3 Expended Information Concerning Mr. Driggers v Specific Area of Interest.

t
The following paper was prepared for the Fourth Princeton/AIAA Conference of Space
Manufacturing Facilities, held in Princeton, New Jersey during May 14 through 17, 1979.
The paper is entitled 1_Is Lunar Material Use Practical in a Non-SPS Scenario? t', and
is paper number 79-1414.
8-21
IS LUNAR MATERIAL USE PRACTICAL IN A NON-SPS SCENARIO?
Gerald W. Driggers*
Southern Research Institute
Birmingham, Alabama
Abstract
depends on the projected markets and poten-
tial for competitiveness. These are the
The issue of material quantity
requirements in Earth orbit which make areas addressed in a recent, brief study
effort, the results of which are presented
lunar material use competitive with in this paper.
classical transport techniques is
examined. Scenarios of future raw and
finished material needs in orbit as a Projected Earth Orbit Materials Market
function of Earth-based market potential
are presented. Cost of transportation The fundamental data for establishing
from Earth and cost of a lunar-based the potential range of materials required
industry to satisfy these markets are was compiled during two studies conducted
addressed and compared. An absolute for NASA._, s These parallel contracts
minimum mass requirement and lunar resulted i_ two complementary reports on
materials implementation cost are not the future of Space Industrialization (SI).
identified; however, the thresholds are In these studies the focus was on how
shown to be between 10 and I00 times less industry may utilize space during the 1980
than previously believed° The key tech- to 2010 time period as driven by the market
nology needs over the next decade, and place, international affairs, national and
possible scenarios leading to use of worldwide economics and technology° Four
lunar materials in the 1990's are dis- generic categories of industrial activity
cussed.
were examined: Information; Materials (or
Products); Energy; and People (travel,
entertainment, etc.) Figure 1 lists some
Introduction
activities that fall under the first three
of these categories. Also listed are
Since the publication of O'_leill's
m=-
several scientific initiatives which would
classic paper (1974) on lunar materials
possibly benefit from a lunar materials
(LM) utilization for construction in
utilization capability. The latter are
Earth orbit, the threshold of practi-
cality for such use has been at issue. _ not considered as representative of any
projectable market, however.
Such a threshold had been previously
examined by both Ehricke and researchers
[ IMO4JITRy
at the NASA/Ames Research Center regard-
EUY MATIEIqlAU
ing the supply of raw materials for the
Earth. More recently, comparisons have SATIL LITII luowllpl MAN M&TIRIAIJ
IIYSTEM
been done between very large scale pro- MANUP_NG
I1. L UIMIqA_h011q nO_C
grams involving Solar Power Satellite -- LUNETTA
(SPS) construction in space. 2, 3 For MmmOR RJ_,O4T
- IOt.k"_A I_'mCDk_E'roit_
MI CROWAVII _OLAR _t.LII

Earth use of raw materials it was gener- - _ DQiP III[F I.Ic'roII
PACE
ally concluded that a lunar based indus- - LARGII
STItUCrVMI
FUlfill _ G0ulrr
_ARY
try could not co_pete with an Earth based -- IAPlG| ManNED n.o:a_w,
Ly
NIJCLEAM WAIITt
Iq.AM_ARY
except in a situation of great need and -- LUWAPl IIAM
great scarcity. Studies on SPS have
shown thresholds of one to thirty units
IS_.ATIO NII4ARCN
on cost equivalency between terrestrial FA_IUTY
and non-terrestrial materials.2,3 Orbital

,,, Ra_IICJ4 Ir_LFI_I
activities on a scale significantly
smaller than SPS have not previously been
examined in a systematic way. Figure i: Examples of Potential Appli-
cations of Lunar Materials to
The practicality of using lunar Science and Industry Initia-
materials in space depends on. several tives
factors: the technology of obtaining°
and converting the raw material; the Of the three industrial areas on
potential existence of a market suffi- Figure i, these labeled Information and
ciently large to warrant the investment; Materials are considered to have the best
and the capability to compete favorably existing foundation in experience and tech-
against an Earth-based industry. Suffi- nology. During the SI studies a substan-
_ cient study, experimentation and explora- tial effort was expended to characterize
_.J tion have been accomplished to establish these markets using hard data on existing
that the necessary technological goals demand and appropriate industry projection_
are achievable. Practicality thus Given a framework of technological develop-
ment, economic development and appropriate
*Head, Applied Thermal Section;
Member, AIAA.
8-22
government/industry cooperation and materials requirements. A requirement
investment, these market surveys were scenario based on classic market buildup
used to project total business revenues. and penetration assumptions in co_unica-
Selected projections are illustrated in tions is illustrated on Figure 3. In the
Figure 2. materials area, four specific high value
products representative of the types of
products anticipated for processing or pro-
duction in space were selected and market
INFORMATION: 1Q SERVICES
projections made. Various assumptions were
then applied to the percentage of this
_EAR market ultimately captured by space pro-
ducts based on individual evaluations of
possible value added by space.
um
,MBI
i-
YEAR5 r-]
_MF.AR
100_
MA'rERIAL_: 10 PflOOUCT$ rill
m
lO-! 8E_I'
m-
e,
_quul
YEARS
Figure 3: One Example of the Evolutionary
M
Mass and Power Requirements at
Geosynchronous Orbit Generated
by Selected Initiatives
These total market and penetration

projections based on industry data provided
the basis for projecting raw material needs
in orbit. ProjectiOns were also made on
the possible range of geosynchronous sat-
ellite (GeoSat) business in terms of total
mass in orbit. Thus, projections of total
mass vs. time and location in Earth orbit
were compiled. For purposes of the current
study an evaluation of the percentage of
this total requirement deemed compatible
with lunar materials was made. The pro-
jections were constrained to the period of
1990 to 2010. Figure 4 presents the total
demand projected as a function of market
assumptions. Note that although GeoSat
Information revenues were several times
I IMI ' _ M Rnt
YIAA
those of materials in Figure 2, the mass
requirements are dominated by the products
Figure 2: Example of the Revenue Data projections.
Compiled During the Space
Industrialization Study. This • There _re two reasons for the noted
type data equates to demand difference. First, the GeoSat mass is in
and use and leads directly to finished, functioning product, obviously
the type data presented in of higher value than the raw material being
Figure 3 supplied a processing plant in Earth orbit.
Secondly, pound-for-pound the GeoSat
The business data represented by represents a significantly higher intrinsic
Figure 2 was subsequently converted to revenue potential over its life span.
satellite (in the case of Information Conversely, one would be willing to spend
initiatives) and partially processed significantly more to obtain finished
8-,.23
government/indus try +cooperation and materials requirements. A requirement
investment, these market surveys were scenario based on classic market buildup
used to project total business revenues. and penetration assumptions in communica-
Selected projections are illustrated in tions is illustrated on Figure 3. In the
V materials area, four specific high value
Figure 2.
products representative of the types of
products anticipated for processing or pro-
duction in space were selected and market
INFORMATION: 11 $|RVICZS
projections made. Various assumptions were
then applied to the percentage of this
market ultimately captured by space pro-
SSITEAR ducts based on individual evaluations of
possible value added by space.
: lO- BEST
im
I. _ ST
m
aLI-
san,
| --}
7EAP, S
MAI"I[RIAI_: 10 P_tOOUC'J'$
ii
100,._
n
10-I 8L_"T
tU
0.1-I //'- CA_I
o
Y,V..Am.5
Figure 3: One Example of the Evolutionary
Mass and Power Requirements at
Geosynchronous Orbit Generated
by Selected Initiatives
These total market and penetration

projections based on industry data provided
the basis for projecting raw material needs
i i!
in orbit. Projections were also made on
m the possible range of geosynchronous sat-
ellite (GeoSat) business in terns of total
m mass in orbit. Thus, projections of total
mass vs. time and location in Earth orbit
- 44 were compiled. For purposes of the current
study an evaluation of the percentage of
+ this
with
Jections
1990
demand
to
total
lunar
projected
requirement
materials
were
2010.
as
constrained
Figure
a function
was
of market
4
deemed
made.
to
presents
compatible
the
The pro-
period
the total
of
assumptions. Note that although GeoSat

i i i Information revenues were several times
INe lm _ =Oat _e
those of materials in Figure 2, the mass
YlJUt
requirements are dominated by the products
Figure 2: Example of the Revenue Data projections.
Compiled During the Space
Industrialization Study. This There are two reasons for the noted
type data equates to demand difference. First, the GeoSat mass is in
and use and leads directly to finished, functioning product, obviously
the type data presented in of higher value than the raw material being
Figure 3 supplied a processing plant in Earth orbit.
Secondly, pound-for-pound the GeoSat
The business data represented by represents a significantly higher intrinsi_
Figure 2 was subsequently converted to revenue potential over its life span.
satellite (in the case of Information Conversely, one would be willing to spend
initiatives) and partially processed significantly more to obtain finished
8-23
GeoSat parts in high Earth orbit (HEO)
purposes of the present study the three
than to obtain unprocessed material in
projections were sufficient to compare Earth
low Earth orbit (LEO).
based vs. lunar based material supply.
_._
Cost of Materials Transport from Earth
The total cost to provide transporta-

tion to LEO and GEO at any point in time
for the three scenarios of Figure 5 is de-
pendent on three things. First, the Design,
j 5o_ Development, Test and Engineering (DDT & E)
cost to provide a capability such as in-
_reased mass per launch or reduced cost per
j i0._ ton of payload in orbit. Second, the cost
of procuring sufficient vehicles to handle
the traffic during the peak launch year.
Third, the operations, expendables and
refurbishment costs which occur due to
launch of payloads.
lZ.$z 3z- lm 6z-2_
oF_T cuT_
A national decision to embark on the
Figure 4: Possible Demand for Lunar usually expensive and rather risk-laaen
Materials Based on Level of venture of launch system development is
Market Satisfied by Space typically driven by a combination of eco-
Utilization Between 1990 and nomic tradeoffs and political perceptions.
2010
In the development of space industry the
economic driver will be dominant over all
The data of Figure 4 are presented but technological considerations. No fore-
in Figure 5 varying with time between seeable single program or set of government
1990 and 2010. The apparent Sigmoidal programs will provide justification for a
behavior of the curves is driven by the successor to the Space Shuttle until the
use of classical market penetration and nineties or beyond.
capture assumptions. The upturn after
about 2006 is driven by the rising domi- However, since this study addressed
nance of GeoSat markets not projected to the practicality of establishing a single
saturate by 2010. Historically, the materials industry in space (perhaps com-
opening of a new economic operating posed of several elements) it was appro-
regime has resulted in growth more along priate to examine a range of vehicle combi-
the dashed line path shown in Figure 5. nations with potentially lower operating
costs than the Shuttle and Shuttle/Inertial
Upper Stage (IUS). The costs for DDT & E,
z -- procurement
study were
and operations
compiled by NASA
used in this
over the past
three years during studies of Shuttle growth
and new hardware development. The vehicles
considered were:
Earth Launch
| i. Basic Space Shuttle (65,000 lb LEO)
2. Growth Shuttle (100,000 lb LEO)
n 3. Class II Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle
(HLLV, 350,000 lb LEO)
.:.:'::"_'T2 ,':.,-'.
. i
..'"' ., r" ..S_. _J .... '
4. Class IV HLLV (600,000 lb LEO)
Orbit Transfer
i. Fully Reusable Orbit Transfer

lggO L_ _ 2m5 Vehicle
The cost for the total transportation re-

Figure 5: Possible Demand for Lunar quirements of the three 20 year programs
Materials Based on Proportion outlined above were computed using the
of Specific Commercial Markets unit transport costs shown on Figure 6.
Captured by Space Based Products These values were arrived at by considera-
and Services tion of such parameters as true load factor
(gross capability minus shipping container
for example for raw materials).
The limitations inherent to the theory
and assumptions underlaying the three
projections shown make prediction of the The results of the total cost evalua-
historical type curve impossible. A tions are presented on Figure 6 for each
broader base of product and market charac- vehicle combination presented. Although
terization would be required to begin to a non-linearity is surely present, the data
approach such a projection. Although it at 5420 tons (the minimum program) are con-
may be possible to gather such data it has nected to the DDT & E costs by a straight
not been accomplished to present. For
8-24
dashed llne to estimate cost in that over 20 years}. Also, as has happened
regime. Several observations can be repeatedly in other studies, the placement
made from the data presented. and operation of the chemical processing
plant in space vs. on the lunar surface
.... t ...... ' ........ I :::t .:., ,':, .:, - , again seemed advantageous. This was par-
i tially driven by the real value assigned
! "' h.i,I, [HWI,,It.i.,I
._.f'.J_-I,_._.!}/t_L,l/l.|_lil_,ll _; | i; 1 ';.
,.-,,Tlumse.sl
ID4 :r
tz'le_,_e To=
lrloe"slag" based on its usefulness as radia-
L tion shielding.
|" _h:l_;/
I l-il i
I.L:I l-t|" I ,; I ._' t' % I/!_ ,_,
ol;'7r.
i!![ The capability requirements of the in-
1i dividual components of the operational sys-
tem were determined during initial phases
and the first installations sized accord-
ingly. For example, the materials process
plant in the low scenarios was sized to be
in full operation by about 2010, operating
intermittently or at reduced capacity from
,4 :-.-. 1990 through 2009. Capacity was incre-
mented according to Figure 5 beyond 2000.
The remaining two demand curves were satis-
fied similarly using the basic modular unit
| _ _0,(_0 15.000 20,000 2S.O00 of the low scenario.
T_ Tuml _ _ u! OIiiIT
(t.m_ A_mea_.a
Gummrnu.el
The lunar operatons were sized based
Figure 6: Transportation Cost as a Func- on a Mass Driver capable of meeting peak
tion of Total Required Tonnage year demands and operating intermittently
in the Market Scenarios or at reduced capacity during prior years.
Inefficiency in sizing for the early years
Since the two Shuttle and the Class is probably compensated by the reduced cost
II HLLV lines cross within a very narrow of operations since no people require
_ tonnage spa_ it probably never makes eco- support during extended shut downs.
nomic sense to invest in a growth Shuttle
system for this transportation job if the The manufacturing plant is not required
i Class II HLLV investment can be made. If by GeoSat demand until about 1998. The pro-
Class II is not to be built, then the duction rate grows rather rapidly after
L¸ growth shuttle makes sense beyond about that, however (see Figure 3}. A modular
[ the 4000 ton requirement. Implementation system was again assumed with a factor of
of the Class II HLLV assumes extensive use four growth by 2007.
of existing facilities. The Class IV HLLV
is too large a step for the level of pro_ For transportation, lunar oxygen ex-
= grams being examined here due to the very tracted on the surface of the Moon and at
_ large investment required in DDT and E and the processing plant was used extensively
_all types of new manufacturing, handling, for both chemical and electric propulsiono *
"_T'launch and recovery facilities. No Earth launch system beyond the presently
defined space shuttle was assumed through
At the lower end of the market sce- the entire operations period. All hydroge_
nario the Shuttle plus OTV probably repre- nitrogen and process plant make-up reagents
sent the best option while the Class II were transported from Earth. All food and
HLLV plus OTV is clearly superior at the H_ to make water for all crews was also
higher tonnage _ates. assumed hauled from Earth although a simple
water recovery system was assumed.
Lunar Materials Scenarios
Thus the following represent the ele-
Making the comparison between Earth ments of the space materials and component
production facility:
based and lunar derived materials required
development of an operational scenario for
I. Transportation
obtaining, transporting and processing the
raw materials. Time and resources did not -- Space Shuttle to LEO
allow a detailed evolutionary scenario to -- LOX/Hz POTV for passenger
be developed for all three demand curves orbital transport
of Figure 5. Some tradeoffs were made at -- LOX/H_ LTV for lunar surface
the lower total demand level and assumed transport
to apply in the other two cases. A spe- -- LOX COTV for hauling cargo
cific example was the evaluation of raw between orbits
material transport modes. Since the fuel -- Mass Driver to eject ores
(liquid Hydrogen} for a chemical system from the Moon
was assumed to come entirely from Earth,
it was advantageous to use a small Mass
Driver system as defined by O'Neill to
project ore stock from the Moon to a
"catcher". _ Surprisingly, _his proved
advantageous even at the lowest demand
level examined (5420 Tons of products
8-25
2. Facilities unit operating full time; 12 for the
2010 operation level. The mid and
-- Lunar mining and bagging upper scenarios used 50T/year and 80T/
Lunar habitat year capacity plants as the fundamental
-- Mass catcher module.
-- Chemical Process Plant
-- Manufacturing Plant (post - All data for the sizing of facilities
1998) and transport systems came from recently
-- Space habitat published reports, briefings or draft
-- LOX plant and depot (lunar reports on lunar materials, lunar material
surface and orbit) utilization or transportation systems. 3._I_,_
(Traffic levels for the three The degree of automation assumed is not
demand scenarios do not warrant beyond the current state-of-the-art and
way stations at LEO or lunar should be very commonly used by the latter
orbit.) eighties.
The initiation and build-up scenario Cost of Lunar Materials

for the low demand projection proceeds as
follows: The individual scenarios described
above were costed using data from refer-
A. Twelve shuttle flights lift 300 tons ences 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9 and some factors
to LEO over a few months span. Un- derived from fundamental data such as
manned cargo flights transport 35 shuttle transportation operations costs.
tons to the selected lunar mining The break down of cost element as a func-
site. Two crew modules of eight tion of demand scenario is given in Table 1.
personnel each land at site.
Table 1
B, Crew of 16 assembles and activates
Cost of Obtaining Lunar Materials
mining operation over 60 day period
(Mass Driver pacing item). Bury two
Cost Element Demand Scenario
crew modules for extended use. All
structure and systems designed for
maximum re-use or canabilization. A. DDT&E
LOW MID UPPER
+ PrOcurement -- --
Once system is operational 12 return
Lunar
to Earth and regular crew of four
remain to operate and maintain auto- Power Station 0.280 0.300 0.500
mated system for six months. •Habitat 0.800 1.000 1.200
{const. + St. State)
Mining Equipmen_ 0.005 0.005 0.005
C. Capture MD output and transport to Benef. Equipment 0.005 0.005 0.005
processing plant. V
Propellant Depot 0.02_____0 0.025 0.035
1.110 1.335 1.745
D, Shut down lunar operation for five
years and run system off initial Space
accumulation or operate the mine for Power Station 0.500 O. 800 1.500
short periods annually. *Habitat
(Proc. & Man.) 0.800 1.000 1.200
Eo Parallel to A. and B. deploy a pro- Process Facility 0.500 0. 600 O.700
cessing plant capable of ultimately Prop. Facility 0.08__.__0 0.08_____0 o.o8_._._o
achieving 600T/year output products. 1.880 2.480 3.480
The unit would weigh about i0 tons
with a I0 tun, 500 kw power supply. _'i Facility Activation
A crew of six would operate and main-
tain the system during intermittent Transport 0.375 0.525 0.775
operating periods from 1990 to 2001. Crews 0.001 0.001 0.001
After 2001 the crew would be full Misc. 0.01___o0 0.0l_____0 0.010
time. (The ultimate capacity of the 0.386 0.536 0.786
other two scenarios require a 45 ton,
1.5 Mw and a 90 ton, 3 Mw plant with Transportation
crews of 8 and i0 respectively. POTV 1.500 1.500 1.500
About two shuttle flights required to COTV 1.500 1.750 1.900
deploy. PLTV 0.400 0.400 0.400
Mass Driver 0.250 0.250 0.250
F. Rotate all crews on a six month basis Mass Catcher 0.500 0.500 0.600
and use a O-g habitat at the process- 4.150 4.400 4.650
ing/manufacturing habitat.
G, Deploy a 40T/year output plant of *Costs shared between habitats.

about 17 tons mass in 1997. Begin
full scale operations in 1998-1999
time frame. Total capability is
incremented in 40T/year output incre-
ments to about 160T/year in 2010.
Six people are required for the basic
8.-26
Table 2 (continued) The cost of raw materials and satel-
lite components including amortization of
investment is a more complex assessment.
The results are very sensitive to the
B. Opecatlo,s (20 yc.)
period of amortization and the level of
Shuttle 0. 768 0.957 I.211 activity during that period. For purposes
Lunar Fecilit_ 0.020 0.020 0.040 of the comparison being done in this study
Lunar Trans. 0.040 0.040 0.060 no attempt was made to extend the 20 year
Space Crews 0.018 0.020 0.025 span of analysis to address the implica-
Space Facility 0.010 0.015 0.030 tions of, for example, a 30 year period of
Transportation (OTO) 0. I00 0.191 0.382 amortization.
0.956 i.243 i.748
Cost Practic alit Y Thresholds
Totals _IoOperations) 7. 526 8. 751 I0. 661
Total (inc.Operations} 8. 482 9. 994 12. 409 The cost for transportation from Earth
of the total demand tonnage is compared to
C. Manuf. Facility Costs the cost of utilizing lunar materials in
DDT & E + Figure 7. On the basis of simple integrated
Procurement 0.740 0.900 i.200 cost over the 20 year span in constant 1979
Power S ration dollars the lunar option ks lowest for all
three scenarios examined. Cross-overs occur
(Share Prec. Plant) 0.100 0.120 0. 200
at less than 4000 tons for the Shuttle based
Facility A_.ivation 0. 050 0.0S0 0.07.__._5
0.890 i.070 I.47S options o
Operations (12 yr.) Figure 7 does not address the economic

issues associated with the various options
Shuttle + for material supply. When such considera-
Transportation 0.400 0.535 0.700 tions are made, the initial investment for
Facillty 0.006 0.008 0.01__2 both the lunar option and the Class II HLLV
0.406 0.543 0.712 + OTV will drive the integrated cost curves
upward. Such an economic examination
Sufficient detailed study has not been should not change the basic ordering of the
done to establish whether any of these results shown, considering _he spread of
numbers have absolute validity. Real values.
experience could be _ or lower based
on several assumptions. Theres"s_ome •
il,h,!!i!!iilH
,i,:
I,h
P.i+li!!,,:i
'I i
:li!
II ; .
,I
, L
© data base in study

as a foundation
and design
for these
activities
estimates,
however, and they should serve the present
. [ i. :!iui'Iirf.il,ir[
fI!,-[
, Il!ll!,rtlrth
J,J-.,+
..
, l '; ,I . . I
: 1,.. _+_'[I + :'t
I. I ,.I, I
purpose.
" +
The results of the costing can be Ii :
.... + .,
i ''+ ......I +; I
+'- ....
"+'
summarized as follows° _ .:rt .t,,,a._l,,.rnj Orvt_ :1 :" :,lq;:b',"i"
Cost for 20 years of raw material supply

processed to a purity and state sufficient
iii+iiili '. ' I +', .
for feed-stock to a Materials Space Pro-
j_ .: I // !_¢u_IIIIU.V.I}_/,::;,,.
i
cessing Facility:
Low Demand Scenario - 8.482 x 10 g S

Middle Demand Scenario - 9.994 x I0 j $ !.;" ! ": i "°'".....
; I
Upper Demand Scenario - 12.409 x 101 $ ,.: ]

O 5,_0 ._,_0 _,_ 20,000 _5,_0
Ter.v.T_um _ I%eucvm _s*
Investment and Operations to manufacture
structure, power systems, antennae, etc.
Figure 7: Comparison of Transportation
for large GEe-SAT assembly:
Cost Options to the Lunar
Low - 1.296 x 10 9 $ Materials Option
Middle . 1.613 x 109 $
Upper - 2.187 x i0 9 $ In dealing with any overall economic
assessment, however, other factors should
be taken into consideration. For example,
The production cost of raw materials then
the growth of space industry to the levels
calculates as follows for the various
demands: implied here for post-2000 may not occur
unless a more economic mechanism than Earth
Low - 0.176 x 106 S/Ton ($80/Ib) launch for material supply are found. The
Middle = 0.106 x 106 S/Ton ($48/ib) minimal cost per pound for lunar material
Upper m 0.074 x 106 S/Ton ($34/Ib) has not been identified in this study; only
a rather simple set of comparions made.
The levels of activities envisioned for S._
The production cost of satellite and power
without SPS will never justify the very
system hardware is also:
large Class IV plus vehicles potentially
% . Low - 0.972 x l0 s S/Ton ($440/Ib) capable of less than 0.ii x i0' S/ton
Middle - 0.904 x 10 s S/Ton ($410/lb) (SS0/ib) to Earth orbit. Unit costs below
Upper - 0.772 x 106 S/Ton ($350/lb) this threshold appear feasible with an
8-27
efficient system to obtain lunar materials minimal manpower required for
at these lower quantities. Very large deployment of a Mass Driver.
scale Materials Space Processing may
depend upon achieving such goals. Facilities
The cost of operations at geosynchro- Lunar Mining and Bagging

nous orbit for the large Information ini- - Begin preliminary design studies
tiatives must be considered in an economic on a minimal, modularized and
assessment also. A lunar utilization in- high automated facility. Design
dustry provides the basics for such an and do scale demonstration
operation by definition, whereas the of equipment and techniques for
habitat DDT & E and operational capability handling lunar materials (part/-
costs must be added to the transportation cularly fines). Design and
options shown on Figure 7. Also, the do scale demonstration on the
existence of a good supply of very cheap manufacture of fiber glass and
shielding material is not inconsequential woven bags. Design an automated
when considering operational modes for system suitable for MD loading at
manned geosynchronous operations. various rates. Design a surface
mining system capable of handling
Key Technologies the fines and rubble.
A great deal of work needs to be done Lunar Habitat

on several technologies which directly -Design a minimal habitat suitable
affect cost and efficiency for obtaining for short-term (60 days) occupancy
and using lunar materials. A few of these by 8-10 people and long term (6
are compiled in the following list. months) occupancy by 2-4 people.
Should be transportable from
Transportation Earth orbit as a single unit and
"suitable for burial" on the
POTV - Develop a capability to transfer lunar surface for protection.
personnel and payloads to geo.
and lunar orbit and return. All Mass Catcher
the chemical propulsion and life - Design a minimal system capable
support technologies are basi- of intercepting and transporting
cally state-of-the-art. or handing over i0 to i00 tons
of _agged lunar material. The
COTV - Develop the technology and demon- key technological needs of such
strate the feasibility of using a system should result from this
oxygen as a propellant in a high preliminary design so that re-
efficiency, high reliability ion search efforts may commence where
drive engine. Some fundamental necessary.
research and demonstration work
can be done relatively inexpen- Chemical Process Plant
sively to seek out and solve - Demonstrate the capability in the
problems pursuant to building laboratory to extract oxygen and
scaled-up hardware. desired metals from simulated ,
lunar material using the three
LTV - Begin tradeoffs and preliminary or four most promising techniques
design studies related to defin- previously studied. Using cri-
ing a minimun cost LTV suitable teria developed during these dem-
for passenger transport to and onstrations, select one route and
from the Moon with extended, do a detailed plant design to
untended loiter time in lunar
obtain more insight into tech-
orbit. Two options should be nology needs. Phase research
studied: a passenger only and a accordingly.
passenger plus cargo down, passen-
ger up. Examination o-'_nexpen- Manufacturing Plant
sively hard landed or semi-soft
- More rapid development of geo
landed supplies (a la Clarke and based services may occur than
Smith, circa 1954) should be
predicted in this study. Studies
examined.
to identify specific manufactur-
Mass Driver ing machine needs leading to pre-
- Continue the development work at liminary design of such machines
Princeton leading to detailed should be conducted.
designs; operation under simu-
lated lunar conditions; maximized Space Habitat
efficiency for mass; optimal mod- -Design a minimal suitable O-g
ularization; etc. Such ancillary habitat for 6-10 people capable
issues as techniques for long of growth and shuttle compatible
term containment and maintenance should be defined with the use
of liquid and gaseous helium intended here in mind. Previous
should be identified early to detailed studies for LEO space
enable suitable research efforts stations of similar size may
to begin. Demonstrate the provide a good starting point.
8-28
LOX Plant and Depot response) should be aggressively
- Preliminary design of a plant and pursued in the eighties.
depot along with research and dem-
onstration of techniques for ex- Orbit Transfer Vehicle
tracting 02 from lunar soil. - A manned geosynchronous orbit
Design of a light weight, auto- capability is the next major
mated plant complete with raw step in extending our reach into
material gathering, liquefaction space. The system should be
and storage capacity is required. designed and developed with the
lunar mission discussed in this
Site Selection paper as part of the criteria.
Availability by 1988-1990 would
Lunar - Detailed study of the lunar sur- seem most appropriate.
face and trajectories for ejected
bags form the minimal basis for Solar Electric Propulsion System (SEPS)
mining and MD site selection. An - Develop and utilize a SEPS capa-
automated inspection capability bility using 25 to 50Kw as a
ultimately may be required. minimum during eighties. Pursue
program expansion to larger
Space - The optimal siting of the materJals power systems and develop oxygen
processing and manufacturing plants propellant technology.
should be evaluated as a function
of costs associated with all trans- Materials Space Processing
port functions. - Expand the current program to
allow involvement of greater
Market Development numbers of experimenters and
payloads in the early eighties.
Materials and Products Steadily promote the increased
- Extensive ground based study involvement of industry in joint
and research and space based ex- .endeavors with government to make
perimentation and demonstration commercial activities feasible.
will be required to develop the
unique products of sufficiently Communications Satellite Technology
high value to warrant building - Promote a coherent technology
plants of the scale discussed base suitable for providing the
here. An agressive set of pro- necessary state-of-the-art in the
grams directed toward developing 1990s leading to large scale,
a set of such products compatible high power systems.
with lunar materials is required.
Obviously experimental work in- Evolutionary Scenarios
volving silicon, silica, glasses,
aluminum iron and steel would be The development of an industrial base
of value. The use of inexpensive in space similar to the scenarios discussed
"Get-a-Way" specials can become a previously will depend strongly on co-oper-
key to this work. ative arrangements worked out between ele-
ments of government and indust.-_. These
Satellites
- Develop the spb-set technol- arrangements will be particularly impor-
ogy areas or large power systems tant during the early to mid-eighties when
(50Kw to 10Mw), large structures, risks, uncertainties and pay-back periods
control and antennae design. Work make private investment almost impossible.
in the_e areas is in progress and Current NASA and Congressional efforts to
should be promoted agressively in promote commercial applications of the
the eighties to assure industry Space Shuttle are a strong, positive step
investment and operational capa- in the direction of meaningful Joint
bility development in the nineties. endeavors.
Near-Term Programs If risk-sharing arrangements on R & D

can be arrived at, it seems quite likely
Power Systems
that the fundamental markets will begin to
- NASA and industry should actively
develop. At that point sufficient know-
promote development of free-flying
ledge will be in hand to encourage multiple
power systems beginning with the
industries to make investments against
25-50Kw module currently being
reasonable use guarantees. That is, User
considered. A continuing program
A assures, guarantees,or warrantees Supplier
leading to development of systems
B that h_s product will be used at some
withcontinuous output on the
minimal price and quantity. Of course, the
order of one to ten megawatts
first User is ultimately the consumer of
should be pursued.
goods or services, and careful, in-depth
market research work is an absolute must.
Large Space Structures
- Research and development in effi- However, once the market is sufficiently
characterized, the proper agreements can
cient fastening and assembly, con-
trol, and material sciences begin to fall into place through the ulti-
mate supplier of raw material. Of course,
(especially long term exposure
8-_
if the necessary investment in new R & D 2. Locate and reserve payload space
and equipment can be shown to be suffi- ("Getaway Specials") on the earliest
ciently small, one corporation and/or possible shuttle flights such that
investor might be attracted to establish- experiments defined in Item 1 can be
ing the entire set of systems and facili- accomplished. Several will probably
ties. It seems more likely that the devel- be required.
opment of individual elements of the
industrial system will evolve similar to 3. Define dual applications where possible z #
the more segmented historical Earth based for the scientific knowledge and engi-
approach which distributes risk during neering know-how to be gained due to
initial phases. The ultimate relationships R & D of the key technologies pre-
of the various parties involved in a mature viously discussed.
space industrial system (as defined by this
paper) are presented in one form in Figure 4. Promote the early R & D initiatives
8. based on Item 3.
5o Develop a communication medium suitable

for dessimination of results on Items
1 through 4 on the order of the British
Interplanetary Society Journal.
Several other steps to be taken in the

near term will require subtle interfacing
between political and social elements to
establish the environment within which
technology can flourish.
Conclusions
Lunar materials utilization can pro-

bably compete against the advanced launch
systems for operation of a reasonable set
of space industries. Unless significantly
Figure 8: Various Relationships Necessary cheaper approaches to advanced launch
for a Mature Space Industry (as systems are defined it may be that such
discussed in this paper) to exist industry growth can be enchanced by lunar
materials use. The use of lunar resources
Although this study examined the in these scenarios is uncertain, however,
period 1990 to 2010 based on previously until certain basic research and develop-
existing data it unfortunately appears ment in materials space processing and %#
unlikely that a lunar materials base large communications systems is accom-
industry can evolve rapidly enough to be plished in the early to mid-eighties.
in operation by 1990. The constraints
are not technological as related to devel- References
opment of techniques, hardware or soft-
ware. They are technological in the sense IO'Neill, G. K., "The Colonization of
that the true potential for generating Space, "Physics Today 27, 9, 1974, pp. 32- 40+.
high value products and large communica-
tions systems that have markets must be 2Space-Based Manufacturin_ From Non-
determined. Thus the results of Materials terrestrial Materials, Progress in Astro-
Space Processing experiments and market nautics and Aeronautics,Vol. 57,AIAA, 1977.
development in the 1980 to 1990 time
period will be crucial as will the large 3Lunar Resources Utilization for Space
GeoSat initiatives. The earlier a uni- Construction - Final Report, NASA Contract
queness is established for certain pro- NAS9-15560, General Dynamics/Convalr Divi _
ducts and the market determined for large sion, 1979.
satellites, the sooner will begin the
drive to obtain the products and services _Space Industrialization Study - Final
at the least possible cost. Modest in- _, NASA Contract NAS8-32197, Science
vestments in the early eighties to promote Appall ations, Inc., April, 1978.
the lunar materials utilization techno-
logies can result in scientific advance- SSpace Industrialization - Final Report,
ment, application of technology to other N_A Contract NAS8-32198, Rockwell Inter-
needs and take years off the ultimate national/Space Division, April, 1978.
implementation time.
_Proceedings of the "Meeting on the
In the immediate future the following Scaling of Early Lunar Operations Leading
should be done. to Full-Scale Space Industrialization",
(In Press) University of California, San
1. Define a set of Materials Space Pro- Diego, January, 1979.
cessing Experiments oriented toward
development of new materials techno- _Extraterrestrial Materials Processinq V
and Construction - Final Report, NASA
logies using lunar compatible feed
stock. Conuract N2_09-051-001 (Mod #24), Lunar and
Planetary Institute, September, 1978.
' 8-30
IWaldro_, R. D., Erstfeld, T. E° and "Manned Geosynchronous Mission Require-
Criswell, D. R. "The Role of Chemical men_S and Systems Analysis Study - Mid-Term
Engineering in Space Manufacturing", Review Phase Z', Grun_nan Aerospace,
Chemical Engineering, February, 1979, February, 1979.
pp. 80-94.
8.4 DR. DULA'S COMMENTS
= ....
ii!iii iii
¸ 8.4.1 SiL_iflcant Contributions MadebY this Study. If the U.S. maintains its leader-
ship in the use of space for the benefit of all humanity, it will have to build and use
E_
larger structures than have been necessary in the past. No one today has a broad
enough conceptual framework or sufficient facts to think usefully about how and when
the U.S. might use extraterrestrial resources to help build these large space structures.
This study is a useful first attempt to compare, with some precision, the costs and
benefits of using lunar resources to construct space structures. NASA must evaluate,
insofar as evaluation is possible at this time, the tradeoffs involved in using these
resources in space construction. The study's chief benefit, in my mind, is that it
allows future planners within the U.S. space program to develop a broader con-
ceptual framework. This broader framework will result in the development of new
methods of using space for the benefit of the American people over the next several
decades.
The study also contributes to our understanding of how a specific large space
structure, the Solar Power Satellite, might be built with some lunar-derived materials.
Regardless of the practicality of this solar power project, study methodology developed
to deal with specific requirements in a specific program will be useful to evaluate the
costs and benefits of using lunar materials for any large structure built in space.
The sensitivity and uncertainty analysis regimes developed to deal with multiple
hierarchical _mcertalnties in this report can be used to study any complex techni-
cal problem whose evaluation requires dealing with many unknowns. Our society
increasingly relies on this type of multivariant analysis to make important policy
decisions. Advanced space activities, such as the present study and especially its
specific focus on the solar power satellite, provide a model system for development
of an analytic regime for making decisions based on incomplete present knowledge.
8-31
Finally, this type of study shows that at least some elements of the American public
sector are looking a significant distance into the future. So much government planning
focuses on what is small and trivial. It seems fit that we occasionally take the advice
of an anonymous writer who said, "Make no little plans. They have no fire to stir men's
souls. Reach only for the stars."
8.4.2 Assessment of Study Usefulness and Applicability.
The usefulness and applicability of this study could be increased by making the con-
clnsions of the report understandable to the average Ares rican and by studying the
nature of the legal risk the United States would assume if it used lunar resources
for space construction.
As a legal manager primarily concerned with evaluating high technology proposals and
studies (though admittedly not aerospace studies) I have been very impressed with the
depth and breadth of this study. The study's very technical sophistication, however,
gives rise to my only two thoughts on how it might be made more useful. First, it is
not easily read by one unskilled in technology. One of the most important jobs of a
good technical manager is to allow policymakers the option, if they wish, of going
to the source documents, such as this study, and understanding the arguments they
present. It should be stressed that this goal is rarely achieved. It is extremely
difficult. M_)st technical writing is precise and uses a language strange to those not
studied in the art to which it pertains. I suggest that the final report incorporate
an Executive Summary written in such a way that the average member of Congress,
policymaker at NASA, or private citizen could read and clearly understand it.
Secondly, any investment decision made by a large company stands on a tripod. The
industrial decisionmaker must evaluate technical, economic and legal feasibility
before entering a venture. It avails not at all that a project would be technically
possible and financially lucrative if it is illegal. Unfortunately the present study
"8-32
stands on only two legs, technical and economic. The use of extraterrestrial resources,
especially lunar-derived resources, is a subject of ongoing legal debate within the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space at the United Nations. Additionally,
the United States is signatory to several multinational treaties that could be inter-
preted as prohibiting the activities studied in this report.
This is not an insurmountable obstacle. International space law is currently in a
state of flux. It would almost certainly be possible to develop an international regime,
if necessary, that would allow the use of lunar-derived resources. Such a regime,
however, would not spring to life instantaneously. History has shown that it is not
impossible to reach concensus on space issues. Thus a legal risk analysis should
be undertaken to determine: (i) what present legal impediments there may be to the
execution of the technical activities described in this study; and (ii) what legal and
organizational alternatives could be developed.
FL!!! i
8.4.3 Expanded Comments Concerning Dr. Dula's Specific Area of Interest.
The United States is presently a state signatory to four major space treaties. These
are: The Treaty of Principles_ which states the general principles of law that apply
to activities in space; a Rescue Treaty dealing with the rescue and return of distress-
ed astronauts; a Liability Convention making the launching state strictly liable for any
damage done by a space vehicle to the surface of the earth or to an aircraft in flight;
and a Registration Treaty providing that the legal jurisdiction of the state on whose
register the space vehicle is enrolled extends to that vehicle. These treaties were
all developed by The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space at the United
Nations. The legal subcommittee of The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space has been debating an agreement governing the activities of states on the moon
and other celestial bodies for the past eight years.
The United States will never undertake the development of lunar resources for
space construction except through the private sector. Unfortunately, the Soviet Union
8.-.33
has been negotiating to keep the U.S. private sector out of space at least since 1962.
The Soviet Union proposed the Treaty of Principles in 1962. The first draft of this
treaty clearly indicated the USSR's belief that profltmaking private companies should
never be allowed to operate in space. Soviet jurist G. P. Zhurakhov wrote in 1974
that the Soviet Union's position on this matter was dictated by its "justified fear" of
granting freedom of action to Western private industry in orrter space would en-
courage "the kind of activity.., correctly characterized as piracy".
The United States rejected this clear attempt to ban free enterprise from space, both
formally in the United Nations and practically by creating the Communications
Satellite Corporation, "not an agency or establishment of the United States government".
In 1963 the United Nations adopted a compromise resolution specifically permitting
activities of private companies in space. The resolution also required that the state
concerned authorize the private activity and exercise "international responsibility"
for and "continuing supervision" over the activity. The Soviet Union accepted this
compromise and it is reflected in the language of the 1967 Treaty of Principles.
The Soviet Union has now conceded that the United States has the right to authorize
the activities of private companies in outer space.
The Soviet Union insisted that the 1972 Liability Convention covering international
liability for damage caused by space objects, incorporate a standard of "absolute
liability". This makes a launching state absolutely liable to pay compensation for
damage caused by space objects, incorporate a standard of "absolute liability". This
makes a launching state absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by
a space object on the surface of the earth or to an aircraft in flight. This means the
United States government is liable without limit for the activities of any of its
companies in space.
8-34
In June of 1971 the Soviet government introduced a draft International Lunar Treaty to the
United Nations General Assembly. Article VIII of that draft states that
"the surface and depth of the moon cannot be the property of states, international
intergoverrnnental or nongovernmental organizations, national organizations en-
joining the rights of legal persons or not as well as the property of physical per-
sons".
!i!i::
_:_; A leading Soviet Jurist then commented that,
"the detailed enumeration of the legal and physical persons which would potential-
ly claim establishment of proprietary rights over the moon, is in our opinion,
completely Justified. The problem could be especially acute when the exploration
of natural resources has begun on the moon or in its depths. The intention of big
businessmen in relation to the future use of the earth's natural satellite is too
well known not to take it into consideration".
Part 2 of Article VIII states that certain legal acts, i.e., "concession exchange,
transfer, sale and purchase, hire, lease, gift or other bargain, with or without the
exchange of money between states and the above listed organization and persons can-
not have as their object any lunar parts or its depth".
The United States and the Soviet Union have been arguing over who should have the
right to use of lunar resources in the United Nations for the past eight years. The
complex and exhausted negotiations have produced numerous drafts, the last of which
is an Austrian working paper dated April 3, 1978. Article VI paragraph 2 of this
draft would allow all states bound by the agreement "the right to collect and remove from
the moon samples of its minerals or other substances." Unfortunately Article XI of
the Austrian working paper states "the moon and its natural resources shall be con-
sidered a common heritage of mankind." Part 3 of this Article states "neither the
surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof, or natural resources
in place, shall become the property of any state, international, intergovernmental

r
organization, national organization or nongovernmental entity, or of any natural person."
8-35
Part 5 of Article XI suggests that an international regime be established to exploit
<_)
lunar resources.
It seems clear that significant legal barriers may be developing that would inhibit the
use of lunar resources for the construction of space objects owned by an individual
state or private corporation. In practice it has been possible to compromise with the
Soviet Union on issues involving the activities of private industry in space. Unfor-
tunately these compromises have created a stifling regulatory atmosphere within the
United States because the U.S. assumes unlimited international responsibility for the
acts of its private citizens and companies. These compromises have also taken time.
The chart appended to this report as Figure 8-1 illustrates how much time was re-
quired to develop the treaties and organizations that presently relate to space.
All quotations from Russian legal opinions comes from NASA Technical Translation
#15912, International Space Law_ edited by A. S. Piradov, Moscow, 1974.

V
8.5 DR. FREEMAN'S COMMENTS
8.5.1 Significant Contributions Made by Study.
This study was a remarkably prodigious effort. The sheer volume of data and cal-
culations handled and collated is indeed impressive. The General Dynamics team
deserves congratulations.
The study has been carefully organized. The three LRU options considered (Concepts
B, C, and D) were well thought out and represented reasonable possibilities for
consideration. The analysis of each was well carried out. This determination of these
three concepts and the details of execution of each together with the selection of optimum
k.2
utilization of lunar materials for the SPS construction e.g., a foamed glass structure
8-36
i
_ll!i
Figure 8-1. TIME FRAME CHART FOR TREATIES AND ORGANIZATIONS
IAEA I4 YRS I
1953 1957
PRINCIPLES TREATY [ i0 YRS 1

1957 1967
REGISTRATION TREATY I 15 YRS

1961 1976
INTELSAT [2 YRS ]
1962 1964
LIABILITY TREATY I 10 YRS

1962 1972
oo
!
-.4 RESCUE & RETURN TREATY 1 4 YRS i

1964 1968
I NTERSPUTN IK 4 YRS ]
1968 1972
ESA I 7 YRS J
1968 1975
MOON TREATY [ 8 YRS PLUS

1970 CONTINUING
INMARSAT 4 YRS ]
1972 1976
1950 1960 1970 1980

etc., are probably the most important contribution of this study.
3
V
8.5.2 Evaluation of Study Resultsi Criticisms.
I feel that this study has underestimated the cost of the LRU concepts. This is par-
ticularly true for the front end costs. The study was not able to define in adequate
detail the various equipment and space manufacturing hardware items necessary for
the full production operations. An example of this is the status of a definitive design
for the construction of an automated solar cell manufacturing facility. LRU study
cost estimates were based on early conceptual equipment proposed by Spire Cor-
poration (see Figure 4-14 page 4-77 of Volume II). The Arthur D. Little, Inc., study
on solar cell requirements* says the hourly production rate for silicon solar cell
blankets necessary to produce one SPS/year is 11,980 m2/hour, which would require
83 Spire Corp. production lines. Clearly, a more detailed baseline design of such a
facility is beyond thescope of the GDC contract, so the uncertainty associated with
its configuration limits the usefulness of the resultant cost estimate.
An additional area in which I feel further attention to detail will amost certainly re-
sult in cost increases is management logistics and operations. The volume of paper
work and management including overhead expenses associated with running a highly auto-
mated space manufacturing system from the ground was estimated at an annual rate of
i
3% of the facility costs. This seems low. Operations costs for the mining and fabrications
operations were based on crew costs of $120,000 per man year, plus spares and 3% ground
support costs. (Ref. Table 5-12, page 5-49. )
The number $48. 15213 shown in Concept B for space based fabrication and assembly
facility and equipment operations is only 32 percent more than the comparable number
for the earth baseline option ($36. 480B) when all that has to happen in the earth based
*NAS9-18294
V
8-38
concept is assembly of the satellite. Although total manufacturing costs for Concept B
i
also must include lunar base costs (Table 5-8, page 5-30), I think this figure for SMF
operations is unrealistically low.
One calculation which suggests that the LRU costs are incomplete is the following:
The rationale for using lunar resources is to save the energy costs necessary to
lift material from the deeper gravity well of the earth. Let's assume that all of these
energy costs are represented in the transportation costs. For the earth baseline
option transportation costs are about 26% of the total program cost. The total cost
is $913,713 billion. Reducing this by ~26% leaves $672.4 billion for the total earth
baseline program with no transportation costs at all. This is more than the cost
estimates of each of the three LRU options including their transportation costs. I
think it highly unlikely that the LRU options can be cheaper than the earth baseline
option without transportation, even if the SMF can be integrated to achieve more
efficient operation than comparable independent earth facilities. I believe they only
appear cheaper because the details are poorly defined at this point.
Finally, I want to again point out that the earth baseline costs supplied by NASA-JSC
do not explicitly include the costs of certain manufacturing facilities such as the solar
cell plant, aluminum production plant etc. All such items are priced on a buy-the-
finished-item basis. Whereas in the LRU concepts the plants must be paid for by
project dollars. In this sense cost comparison between the two systems is like com-
paring apples and oranges. A common cost comparison basis will alter the relative
slopes of the cost vs. time curves.
8. S. 3 Expanded Comments Concernin_ Dr. Freeman's Specific Area of Interest, i. e.,

An Alternative to Solid State Solar Cells.
A major problem associated with the L1RU approach is the difficult technical challenge
of establishing an automated manufacturing facility for high quality solar cells in
8-39
space or on the lunar surface that can turn out about 12,000 m 2 of solar cells per hour.
Solar cells are difficult to manufacture as evidenced by the fact that they have been
used in space for nearly 20 years but are still being hand made despite considerable
research and effort at automation. The manufacturing process contains numerous
steps involving carefully controlled environments and delicate handling. The final
products usually vary highly in quality.
A problem fundamental to the present baseline solar power satellite concept is the
requirement for high voltage solar cell arrays where klystrons are used, along with
lifetime problems of the klystrons themselves.
For these reasons Rice University has been searching for a simpler device to manu-
facture than the solid state solar cell which would convert sunlight directly to R. F.
radiation. We believe we have found such a device. It operates on the principle of
the reflex klystron with the cathode replaced by a photo-emitting surface. We call
it a photoklystron.
The proof-of-concept model now being tested oscillates at 30 to 88 MHz depending on
the mode selected. The oscillations are strong, highly reproduceable, and the device
requires no'trigger pulse to initiate oscillations.
The photoklystron is exceedingly simple requiring only an efficient photoelectron
emitting surface, two grids, a reflector electrode and inductive coupling between the
grids. Because of the extreme simplicity of the photoklystron the cost of production
is expected to be lower than that of solar cells, and manufacture in space is con-
ceivably possible. In the present design, an S-4 photocathode is used with an end
window transmission arrangement as in a standard photodiode.
The laboratory model being tested requires low D. C. bias voltages (4 to 20 volts)
8-40
and hence eliminates the need for high voltage solar cell arrays in the Solar Power
Satellite application. Low voltage solar cell arrays can provide the bias voltage. A
more advanced photoklystron may be sel_iasing.
4-:
A Solar Power Satellite configuration is envisioned where the R.F. radiation from
j-_
____ ....
each photoklystron is beamed directly to the earth. The potential advantages of the
photoklystron as applied to the Solar Power Satellite are as follows:
1..High voltage solar cell arrays are eliminated.
2. D.C. Bus Bars are greatly reduced in quantity.
3. The necessity for slip rings is eliminated.
4. Lifetime problems associated with high power klystrons are eliminated.
5. Heat rejection of the R.F. elements becomes less important.
6. The cost of manufacture of the photoklystrons should be much less than that of
solar cells.
Details of Operations
Figure 8-2 is a schematic of the photoklystron. In version (a) solar photons pass through
a transparent substrate and emit electrons from a photoemitting material. The photo-
electrons then pass through a pair of grids connected to an inductor and on which an
oscillating voltage is established. O n passing through the two grids the electrons
are repellect by a negatively biased reflector electrode. They return to the two grids
and are bunched according to reflex klystron theory. When the reflection voltage is
adjusted properly the returning bunched electrons will be phased such as to add
energy to the A.C. electric field between the grids. This energy from the electron
beam reinforces the oscillations in the tuned resonant circuit. Energy can be ex-
tracted from the resonant circuit by transformer coupling or by an antenna stub
in the case of very high frequencies. The version of this device being tested is
designed to oscillate at about 30 MHz. The frequency is determined by the time of
flight of the electrons during reflection. The resonant frequency of the tank circuit
must be tuned to approximately match this frequency. Fine tuning is accomplished
8-41
,,..s
PHOTOEMITTER
I I REFLECTOR
I I
I
I I ELECTRODE
I I
I I
I I
SOLAR
I I
PHOTOI'I I I
I I
L
+VA -V R
CA)
/' PHOTO EM ITTER
I I I
I I I
SOLAR
PHOTON
I e." I
I I
I I
..I J
-V R
(B; V
Figure 8-2. The Photoklystron.

8-42
f_
by adjusting the accelerating or reflection electrode voltage.
An alternative photoemitter configuration is shown in Figure 8-2b. In this case, the
principle of operation is the same except the photoemitter is now coated on an opaque
metallic plate and the photons pass through the grids first. Type (a) is called the
transmission type and type (b) the reflection type. It may be possible to design a device
that uses both the transmission and reflection photoemlssion processes simultaneously
to optimize the photoelectron yield, however, we have not yet attempted a detailed
analysis of this combined case. Also, the first grid and the photoemitter may be com-
bined into a single electrode, simplifying the configuration. In another configuration,
for operation at higher frequencies, the A.C. grids may be replaced by a resonant
cavit_ which is part of a wavegutde.
The principle advantage of this A.C. photoelectric solar cell can be understood by
examining the limitations on the efficiency of a solid state solar cell. Photoelectrons
possess a broad energy spectrum. -In the solid state solar cell the lower limit on the
energy of the useful photoelectrons is the band gap energy. Electrons whose energy is
less than the band gap cannot reach the conduction band to contribute to the photovoltaic
current. At the high energy end of the spectrum, electron energy much greater
than the band gap energy is wasted as the electrons lose energy in the semiconductors
and heat the cell. Hence, only a narrow slice of the photoelectron energy spectrum is
available for contribution to the solar cell current. An analogous situation also holds
for the D.C. photoelectric solar cell. The lower energy photoelectrons cannot reach
the negative biased electron collector and the higher energy photoelectrons contribute
current but have their excess energy wasted through heating the electron collector as
they bury themselves in it. The object of the A.C. photoelectric solar cell is to
utilize nearly all of the photoelectron energy spectrum. Electron bunching makes this
possible. The very highest energy electrons are used.
\ All electrons of energy below the reflector voltage are bunched together in space and
8--43
contribute to exciting the A.C. signal in the A.C. grids.
Development Status
Rice University has a proof-of-concept working model of a photoklystron which has it's
dominant mode at 30 MHz. It is believed microwave frequencies can be obtained with
appropriate modifications to the resonant cavity and various dimensions. Analysis of
data from the photoldystron indicates that the device does not work exactly according
to reflex klystron theory but rather electron bunching occurs within the A. C. girds.
This lends itself to high efficiencies and high frequencies.
Overall efficiency data is not yet available on the test article, however, the R.F. signal
is readily detected by a small transistor radio several meters from the photoklystron
without a tuned antenna and with 10 mw of light input.
In summary, we expect that, with development effort, the photoklystron could replace
solar cells and its particular advantage to the LRU approach is that is it should be
manufacturable in space more readily than solar cells.
8.6 DR. O'NEILL'S COMMENTS
8.6.1 Signifi_cant Contributions Made by Study.
Overall, the Convair-General Dynamics group led by E. Bock has done an excellent
Job, and a great deal of new information and insight has been gained as a result of it.
The three strongest points of the study are: 1) It has been managed from an aerospace-
engineering rather than an academic or pure-science viewpoint. 2) It has compared
earth-resources and lunar-resources manufacturing options on as equal a basis as
possible, rather than concentrating on a study of one option only. 3) It has tended
to choose different technical solutions to specific problems from those chosen by
earlier studies. This has had the merit of showing that general conclusions reached
earlier are not critically dependent on particular technical choices. k.;
8-44
In comparison with earlier contractor studies on quite different topics by aerospace
firms, it is my impression that NAS9-15560 has obtained a much greater amount of
valuable new information than could have been expected from the size of the contract.
8.6.2 Assessment of Study Usefulness and Applicability - Limitations of Starting

Assumptions.
Time constraints made certain simplifying assumptions necessary. We should not
lose track of them, and all study conclusions should be qualified by citing those
assumptions (Section 2, pages 2-1 through 2-7). Of these guidelines, I think that
four are quite unrealistic.
1. "Lunar resource utilization guidelines compatible with the Earth-Baseline SPS
defined by JSC as of January 1978 system definition document." A program of
this magnitude w6uld certainly involve optimization of an SPS design for con-
struction from lunar materials. This remains a task for a future study. Use
__:,
V
of the Earth-Baseline SPS as a starting point biases the study conclusions against
lunar resource utlizafion (LRU in the Study terminology).
2. "Industrial robots with 1990 technology." This probably does not heavily bias
the study, because apparently the cost of maintenance of the _ workforce is
not a major cost driver. My concern here is that NASA not be led up an un-
realistic "garden path" on automation. Close cooperation with such experts in
automation as Dr. C. Rosen, head of the SRI Robotics Group, leads me to believe
that automation in assembly of the SPS will be more difficult than automation of
the LRU processing equipment, because the latter is basically process-flow tech-
nology, mechanically much sil_pler. My information is that with robots we will be
able to reduce the necessary human workforce in SPS assembly by about a factor
ten from non-automated Earth-type assembly lines but not much more (because of
maintenance requirements).
3. "No bootstrapping." I understand the time constraints that made this assumption
necessary, but nevertheless it is a very serious handicap. We are just now learn-
ing to find our way into the beginning of the bootstrapping options, but everything
looked at so far indicates that there is a great deal of earth-launched mass to be
8-45
savedby such bootstrapping. For example, from Table 4-16 on page 4-79, 93% of
the mass requirement for the SMF, and 91% of the power requirement, is for
silicon solar cell panel production. Surely a great deal of that mass is in the form
of simple, repetitive components: the massive rather than the technically compli-
cated pieces of process plants and ribbon-growing machines. We know from other
studies, for example, that process plants scale linearly in mass down to rates 10 to
100 times smaller than the plant size baselined. It makes sense therefore to carry
out RDT&E on a small plant in the linear range, and parallel units of that plant,
rather than building one large process plant.
Much of the mass for workforce habitats is also simple and repetitive, and there-
fore quite suitable to being constructed in space from lunar materials.
4. "Steady state production over a thirty-year period." There is one thing we can be
sure of about SPS production: it will not be steady state. Either the SPS will fail
(economically or for environmental, political, or social reasons) or else it will
take a rapidly increasing market share. This is, I believe, a very serious error in
the earth-baseline studies, and it has been adopted perforce in the LRU study so
that a comparison might be made. Current RDT&E spending on nuclear power
is all based on the assumption that if it works it will dominate the electric-energy
market. SPS either earth-launched or by LRU would require a comparable invest-
menf in RDT&E. I cannot imagine that investment being made for a technology
targeted at only 2% to 5% of the world electric energy market (as JSC assumes).
In the follow-on studies which should certainly be made, I would put very high
priority on re-evaluation with opposite assumptions from #3 and #4; assumption
#1 is important but just slightly less so, and #2 may not introduce a serious bias
even if it is incorrect.
Detailed Comments on Study Results
ASsumption 2) on page 3-2: because of efficient devices only usable in vacuum (like v
8-46
mass-drivers) a comparison of delta-V's for supply of materials to GEO or LEO may
strongly underestimate the real cost savings of LRUo
Section 3, specifically the scenario development results on page 3-20: Here, at a
crucial decision-point, the no-bootstrapping assumption bites again. With bootstrapping,
the scaling workshops organized by Princeton and LPI during 1978-79 strongly indicate
that LRU may be quite cost-effective even as low as 2,000 tons/year rather than the
19,000 tons/year indicated. In that case the "global low scenario" without SPS may
already be viable with LRU.
Section 3.5 page 3-21: Here again the lack of an SPS design optimized from the start
e
for LRU biases the result.
Section 4.6.1, paragraph e on page 4-165: The suggestion of using a SDV for both
cargo and personnel seems good. It should be noted that with different starting
assumptions the total startup mass and EMR percentage may both be reduced to the
point where RDT&E for the SDV can be delayed until later in the program.
Section 4.2, page 4-14: The report notes that delta-V requirements for all slow-
transfer systems are still unclear. I suggest this be straightened out in subsequent
work.
Section 4.2, page 4-12: Of the guidelines listed, I object only to two: 1) steady-state
operations, and 7) LRU crew sizes approximately three times that of Earth Baseline.
My reason for the second objection is that the items unique to LRU appear to be of
the process-flow type, which should be much more suitable to automation than SPS
assembly. A recent workshop, for example, in which Dr. Charles Rosen (referred
to earner) participated, concluded that a small process plant for lunar materials could
probably be operated entirely unattended. Existing-type industrial robots would be
placed in fixed mounts at a few locations where, every few months, high-temperature
8-47
reaction vessels would be unbolted and replaced by spares.
Section 4.2.2, page 4-18: I support the GDC decision to baseline the ion-drive
COTV, but only on the grounds that it is a technology with many years of development
behind it, and that there is value in making choices different from those used earlier.
I have discussed the MDRE-ion drive comparison with NASA-Lewis engineers who have
contributed to and monitored ion drive development over many years. My conclusions
are:
1. The obJection to the use of non-gaseous materials as MDRE reaction mass cannot
either be sustained or refuted until the necessary research is carried out. It appears
that reaction mass ejected as powder and dispersed electrostatically (hit with an
electron beam charge after acceleration and release from the bucket) should be
harmless. This needs to be confirmed or denied by experimental research. It
should be noted that natural micrometeoroid bombardment inbound to the earth is
already at the level 400 tons/day, and that most of that material is in the plane of
the ecliptic.
2. The numbers used for comparison (see pages 4-183 through 4-186) do not appear to
be valid. This needs more research than the time-constraints of this study permit.
I
Table 4-4, page 4-28: In-space activitylocations should not be regarded as a deterrent
to an option. _In free space the energy source both for full-time manufacturing and for
crew life-support is assured, while on the lunar surface there is a serious energy
problem during the lunar night.
Concept D discussion on page 4-29: Not a serious point, but the LDR RDT&E involves
all the combined problems of high temperatures, high pressures, and reactive materials.
That development could well turn out to be much mere difficult than that of a mass-
driver, which operates at room temperature with modest stresses and no reactive chemi-
cals.
8-48
Figure 4-41, page 4-165: I realize that the NASA JSC provided I-I'LLV RDT&E
development cost is supposed to be only 11.1 billions, but in view of the fact that it
i
involves two large new vehicles it is hard to believe so low a number. Look at the
problems with the Shuttle, a machine with less than a tenth the payload.
Section 4. 4.4 paragraphs a and b: The information on vapor-phase deposition is
particularly good, although Figure 4-12 is quite unclear. (Electron beam passes between
endless belt and is deflected down into molton aluminum. Aluminum is deposited on
underside of belt. Powdered aluminum is fed directly into crucible on the far side of
the belt. Ed. )
Table 4-16, page 4-79: The masses assumed for the solar-cell manufacturing plant
seem very high. I wonder if these are due to taking over masses from earth-based
machinery that was designed without love-mass as a positive quality. At the least,
one should look into what mass savings could be obtained by some degree of boot-
strapping there: I cannot believe 22,000 tons of machinery all complex and non-
repetitive.
Figures 4-56 through 4-58 on pages 4-212 and 4-213: The word "propellant" occurs
many times in the figure, and in some eases it is not clear what the allocation means.
("Propellant" listed next to Facility indicates the propellant quantity which must initially
be supplied to that location. 'tPropellant" adjacent to transfer arrows between facilities
indicates the propellants required to deliver that facility including its initial propellant
supply. Ed. )
Table 4-65, page 4-214: Again note that the high startup mass for LRU depends strong-
ly on the no-bootstrap assumption.
Table 5=8, page 5-30: Though the lunar-rocket Concepts C and D do not emerge as best
choices, we should keep in mind (in case they are thought of as "almost as good" as
8-49
Concept B) that they imply large emissions of exhausts into the lunar environment.
That is so particularly in the realistic case of an SPS production rate growing to far
above one per year.
Page 5-43: The questions of supply and demand and the pricing of rare materials
are interesting because of their potential impact on Earth-Baseline SPS production.
Witness the fluctuating situation on oil prices. How many such uncertainties might
come into earth-based SPS production over a thirty-year period? Note also that
"exotic" sources may in some cases be in better supply than conventional ones: in
World War H's closing months the German army and air force was almost at a stand-
still for lack of oil and gasoline: yet the "exotic" V-2 missiles, powered by alcohol
(derived from potatoes) and liquid oxygen (from the air) never ran short of fuel, and
bombarded England and Holland until the V-2 bases were occupied.
Figures 5-10 through 5-13, pages 5-51 through 5-55:
1. Thirty years of scientific work with error analysis leave me very critical of these V
graphs. It is a universal convention in science that error-bars are drawn at the
one-standard-deviation level. For the work to be understood by scientists I suggest
making the third graph of Figure 5-13 (:_ 1 _ ) the large one.
2. These are not errors in the scientific sence, because they are subjectively obtained.
In scienc_ one calculates standard deviations by the appropriately weighted sum of
statistical errors and measurable systematic errors. If one has no measure of the
systematic errors other than a guess, one should not have started the experiment
in the first place.
3. The definition of "crossover" is incorrect. When errors are introduced, cross-
over becomes a band, not a point. For example, on the two-sigma graph of
Figure 5-13, crossover could occur anywhere from zer_.._qinstalled capacity up to
thirty SPS. (Study used the terminology "maximum crossover" in an effort to
resolve this difficulty. Ed. )
4. If I understand the way the graphs were constructed, the uncertainty in the cross-
8.-50
over band has been wrongly associated with a certain sigma. For example, in
the one-sigma graph of Figure 5--13 the point marked "crossover" actuaUy cor-
i
responds not to a one-sigma deviation but to tw...__o
simultaneous one-sigma deviations,
w
one up and one down -- unless they are correlated in some way. In fact, if there
were any correlation the common elements in the earth and LRU options would
tend to pull the costs up or down together, rather than in opposite directions.
Two simultaneous one-sigma deviations in prescribed directions are more like (in
error theory) a single two-sigma deviation.
Section 5.4.5, pages 5-65 and 5-66: Again, LRU RDT&E is based on an assumption
of very little use of parallel units.
Figures 5-21 and 5-22, pages 5-74 and 5-75: Both of these are useful, but you need
a thir_l g_aph cbmbintng just the totals. (This suggestion was implemented in Figure
2-15 of Volume I. Ed. )
Figure 5-22, page 5-75: For LRU Concept B, I don't understand the substantial
increase in operations costs near the end of the thirty years --- doesn't seem to make
sense. (Operations costs have increased to support 30 satellites. Ed. )
Section 6: This is a good outline of likely development scenarios, particularly the
presentation in Figure 6-1, page 6-3.
Section 6.2, page 6-11: This is an important conclusion, that the L1RU scenario if
developed appropriately need no___t

delay SPS implementation.
Section 6.3, pages 6-11 through 6-16: Also makes good points, that we should not pursue
an "either/or" approach. Last paragraph on page 6-16 also points up the need for an
updatable critical-path analysis.
8-51
8.6.3 Evaluation of S._tudy Results_ Criticisms.
Volume I, Section 3.1 Conclusions, pages 3-1 through 3.3: There are eleven listed
conclusions. My comments are number:
1. SPS or its equivalent may not be needed to support LRU if scaling and bootstrapping
studies continue to go the way they have begun.
2. Earth Material Requirements applicability to initial LRU evaluation conclusion
seem reasonable.
3. The figure 90% is probably a lower limit, because the starting point was an SPS
design not optimized for production from lunar materials. What has been done in
this study is substitution plus minor redesign, not optimization starting at zero
with conceptual design.
S. I concur, but with the important reservation that Concepts C and D imply sub-
stantial discharge of reaction products into the lunar environment, and so may be
unacceptable politically due to international scientific objections.
6. Conclusion that alternative lunar material processing techniques are feasible
seems well-established.
7. Solar cell facility mass conclusion is true within the limitations of the study as-
sumptions; an obvious point for further study, which could drastically reduce the
estimated masses.
10. Seems ok; but as a physicist I object to quoting an error figure for something derived
originally with subjective input. Also note that every assumption made was biased
toward the Earth-Baseline. Interesting that even with those biases the answer comes
out in favor of LRU.
Volume I Section 3.2 Recommendations, page 3.3: Accomplishment of LRU technology
development in parallel with an earth based program makes excellent sense.
Section 7, Figure 7-1, page 7-15: The recommended follow-up studies seem good. There
seems to be internal activity with the effect of forcing NASA out of this business, but
8-52
on the other hand DOE (with former NASA Administrator Jim Fletcher as vice-
chairman of an important committee) seems to be taking increased interest. It
may be worth shifting to DOE as a possible funding source.
Figure 7-2, page 7-15: With the expected closing down of the LPI study, the extension
of lunar-soils processing studies to the laboratory workbench hardware stage becomes,
in my opinion, the most urgent of all unfunded activities. The recommended tech-
nology development tasks are all generally good, though I think item F (mass-driver)
needs to have more funding than item H (oxygen ion electric thruster) because it is
being started twenty years or so after ion drive and needs to catch up if it is to be
understood well and evaluated on an equal basis. Because the Study choice was so
biased by an untested assumption (that lunar soil should not be used as reaction mass)
I also think research is needed to examine that assumption.
Table 7-3, page 7-17: Should add to the Shuttle technology tests an in-space test of
a "demonstration" mass-driver. OAST, now funding that development, regards
such a test as a key item in its long-term program. The dispersion in zero-gravity
and high vacuum of equivalent MDRE reaction mass would also be an excellent test
item for the Shuttle.
Suggested Further Research: As an overall criticism, the recommended further-study
item in Section 7 are good but do not adequately address the "holes" in the Study itself.
At this point, at the conclusion of the GDC Study, it is particularly important to go
back and question the starting assumptions of the Study, so that any possible follow-on
does not just wander farther and farther out along one particular limb of an option-tree.
Among the gaps in the present Study that most need to be filled in, because they have
the greatest potential for changing the magnitude though not the fact of the pro-LRU
conclusion, I would select:
-L ,
8-53
= _
I. Bootstrapping. This is a very rich mine for possible progress.
2. Novel solar energy converters that would work best in space. An example is
Dr. D. Criswell's suggestion of a photoelectron diode.
3. Further exploration of the system-aspects of a mass-driver reaction engine,
particularly rendering safe the reaction mass.
4. Lower--mass facilitiesfor silicon solar-ceU production. Anything that is to be
dep.loyed as 83 parallel production lines is fair game for some degree of in-space
construction, and that might turn out to include most of its high-mass com-
ponents.
5. SPS design optimized for LRU. SPS has three vulnerable points, any one of which
could turn out to be a permanent block to its realization:
a) Acceptability of microwave power transmission.
b) Economics, in the face of competing energy alternatives. There LRU can play
an important role, probably even more important than indicated by this study.
c) Environmental acceptability of the considerable burden on the biosphere imposed
under the Earth-Baseline option by launch--vehicle emissions. As I stated at the
outset, SPS is most unlikely to be politicallysaleable if its potential deployment
level is only one SPS per year because that would be only 2% to 5% of the world
market now expected for twenty years from now. Both, politicallyand economical-
ly it will be saleable only if it offers the potential for satisfying a very large
i
fraction of world needs. In terms of our country alone, we need the export sales
to offset high balance-of-payments deficits, and we could not afford to deploy
SPS only for our own use because that would make us unilaterally dependent on
a relatively vulnerable energy resource (vulnerable in a military sense).
With that logic, we need to look at the total world market. That is equivalent to 20 to
40 SPS per year, and in the Earth-baseline would require (according to this Study,
Figure 4-2, page 4-16) the discharge into the atmosphere of 3.3 megatons of exhaust
8--54
products per SPS or from 66 to 132 megatons per year to satisfy world needs. It is
quite possible, considering public outcry on environmental and nuclear power issues,
that the avoidance of that discharge of exhaust gases into the atmosphere will be an
even more compelling reason for LRU than its savings in costs. Following that logic
a little further, there is a strong reason to push toward research that will establish
the feasibility of LRU at a level higher than the (already quite good) 90%.
As a final, one-sentence conclusion, the most important results of this study are that
it establishes the cost-effectlveness of LRU in spite of starting assumptions biased
the other way, and that it identifies no single "critical" technology in LRU for which
there are not alternative paths.
8--55
i

1979 Lunar Resources Utilization Vol2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1979 Lunar Resources Utilization Vol2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

_W

(NASA-CR-]7302_) LUNAR a_SOURCES -E8_---7 8_-7 7

LUNAR RESOURCES UTILIZATION

CONTRACT NO. NAS9-15560

Gener_ Dynamics Convair

Ed Bock -- Study Manager

s© Mike Burz -- Transportation Analysis

Maridee Peter-sen -- Typing

Abe Hurlich Material Processing & Manufacturing

Dr. Jim Arnold -- University of California at San Diego

Contract NAS09- 051- 001 "Extraterrestrial Materials Processing and Construc-

Contract NAS8-32925 "Extraterrestrial Processing and Manufacturing of Large

Glass Manufacture Using Lunar Materials Information from Dr. MacKenzie

For further information contact:

Earle M. Crum Edward H. Bock

(AC713) 483-3083 (AC714) 277-8900 x2510

I. 2 LUNAR RESOURCES UTILIZATION CONCEPT 1-2

1.3 STUDY SCOPE 1-3

1.4 OBJECTIVES 1-3

i. 5 VOLUME II ORGANIZATION 1-4

2 COMPARISON METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA (TASK 5.1) 2-1

2.1 STUDY GUIDELINES 2-1

2.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA 2-7

2. 3 FIGURES OF MERIT 2-8

2.4 COMPARISON METHODOLOGY 2-12

MATERIAL REQL-IREMENTS AND SCENARIO

3.1 GROUNDRULES AND ASSLq_IPTIONS

3.2 DEVELOPMENT OF LOW SCENARIO TOTAL

3.3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF NOMINAL MATERIAL

3.4 SATELLITE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS

3.5 SATELLITE MATERIAL REQL_IREMENTS (LUNAR

4 LUNAR UTILIZATION SYSTEM CONCEPTS DEFINITION

4.1 DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE LRU IMPLEMENTATION

4.2 EARTH MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS (EMR) & LRU

4.3 EMR COMPARISON AND PRELIMINARY CONCEPT

4.4 LUNAR MATERIALS PROCESSING AND

4.5 LRU INFRASTRUCTLrRE ELEMENT DEFINITION 4-89

4. 6 LRU TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT DEFINITION 4-147-

LRU MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION 4-190

LRU START-UP LOGISTICS 4-196

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)

4.8.1 Start-Up Mass Estimates 4-197

4.9 UPDATED IN-SPACE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS

ECONOMIC ANALYSES (TASKS 5.3, 5.4 & 5.6) 5-1

5.1 EARTH MANUFACTURED SPS BASELINE 5-4

5.2 LUNAR RESOURCE UTILIZATION ELEMENT _OSTS 5-8

5.3 TOTAL PROGRAM COST OF THE LRU OPTIONS 5-15

5.4 COST UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS 5-44

5°5 FUNDING SPREAD PROFILES/PRESENT VALUE

PRELIMINARY DECISION ANALYSIS (TASK 5.5) 6-1

6. I PARALLEL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DEFINITION 6-2

6.2 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULES 6-9

6.3 ACHIEVEMENTS NEEDED TO JUSTIFY FUNDING 6-11

RECOMMENDATIONS (TASK 5.7) 7-1

7.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER WORK 7-2

7.2 TASK ASSESSMENT AND SCHEDULING 7-11

7.3 LRU SHUTTLE TECHNOLOGY EXPERIMENTS 7-12

REVIEWER CONTRIBUTIONS 8-1

8.1 REVIEWER RESUMES 8-2

8.2 DR. ARNOLD'S COMMENTS 8-10

8.3 MR. DRIGGERS' COMMENTS 8-2O

8.4 DR. DULA'S COMMENTS 8-31

8.5 DR. FREEMAN'S COMMENTS 8-36

8.6 DR. O'NEILL'S COMMENTS 8-44